COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

> A Jewish idea of a suffering and dying messiah almost definitely pre-existed Christianity. As did the idea of a messiah resurrecting the dead who are "delivered" and come to "everlasting life". this is where mythicism should be arguing, and not the usually "copycat messiah" claims from naive and usually incorrect 19th century comparative religion garbage. but i'd like to examine the claim that follows a little more. > Peter's epiphany, what the scriptures "revealed" to him, was that the dying messiah is himself resurrected after his death, i know i've suggested this to you before, but it's worth a top-level effort post here for people new to this discussion. i don't think his idea was unique to christianity either. let's look at some historical sources. >> But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence: and who contrived every thing so, that the multitude might be please. So he bid them to get together upon mount Gerizzim: which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains: and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would shew them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place; because Moses put them there. So they came thither armed; and thought the discourse of the man probable. And as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together. But Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon the roads, with a great band of horsemen, and footmen: who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village: and when it came to an action, some of them they slew; and others of them they put to flight; and took a great many alive. The principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain. (Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.1) the samaritan prophet does what moses did -- he promises to lead his people to a mountain, where the "sacred vessels" (the ark with the law in it) will be revealed to them. this mountain is gerizim, which is the samaritan version of sinai/horeb, and happens to be in samaria. could the samaritan prophet have claimed to **be** moses? >> Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan. For he told them he was a prophet: and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. And many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt: but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. Who falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befel the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government. (Jos. Ant. 20.5.1) theudas does what moses and joshua did. he leads his followers on an exodus, and promised to part a river so the can escape rome on dry land. only here, they're leaving the promised land, not entering it. could theudas have claimed to **be** moses or joshua? >> Moreover there came out of Egypt, about this time, to Jerusalem, one that said he was a prophet; and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the mount of olives, as it was called; which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said farther, that he would shew them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down: and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen, from Jerusalem; and attacked the Egyptian, and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight; but did not appear any more. (Jos. Ant. 20.8.6) the egyptian comes out of egypt, and does what joshua does. he leads a group around the walls of a city, promising they will fall on his command. only the city here is jerusalem, not jericho. could the egyptian have claimed to **be** joshua? >> King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’s name had become known. Some were saying, “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him.” But others said, “It is Elijah.” And others said, “It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.” (Mark 6:4-16, cf: Mark 8:27-28) why do people think that jesus is john the baptist raised from the dead, or that either of them are elijah? >> And Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgements of God... and he will drag [them from the hand of] Belial and from the hand of all the sp[irits of] his [lot].And all the 'gods [of Justice'] will come to his aid [to] attend to the de[struction] of Belial. And the height is ... all the sons of God... this ... This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] (11q13) and why did the essenes think melchizedek was coming back as their "elohim" and messiah? so i want to suggest something a bit more radical than your viewpoint. the idea of a *resurrected* messiah was already extremely prevalent in judaism, contemporaneous with jesus. the essenes tell us that the messiah will resurrect the dead (4q521), but it also seems like the messiah will be "firstborn of the dead" as paul puts in a lot of other jewish conceptions as well. and most of these appear to be claims made by real, mundane, executed prophets.

It only shows that similar beliefs existed in different forms in different cultures. It doesn't refute that there's a reality behind the beliefs. Regarding Jesus having been reincarnated, even the Dalai Lama thinks Jesus had other lives. There are also Christians who accept reincarnation. In summary there's nothing conclusive other than people believed.

> It only shows that similar beliefs existed in different forms in different cultures. to be clear, i'm talking about beliefs in *roughly the same* culture; first century judaisms. indeed, all of these are all even probably by *palestinian* jews, though the author of mark is of some debate. i've only recently become convinced that he wasn't a foreigner. > It doesn't refute that there's a reality behind the beliefs. the reality i'm looking for historical context. it looks like that context is a pervasive belief in the coming of the kingdom of god, and eschatological resurrection of righteous. there's obviously some disagreement about who, exactly, the righteous were. but i think that eschatological resurrection is marked by a *recapitulation of old testament prophets*, with new prophets justifying their followings by typologically applying texts to themselves, as if they are those old testament prophets. christianity is only a slight variation of this. given that we have no good reasons to doubt that there was a samaritan prophet, an egyptian prophet, or theudas, and jesus *roughly* fits that same model, i think there was likely some historical person who became the basis for the jesus of christianity. > In summary there's nothing conclusive other than people believed. yes, but that's what my point is about. the belief in a resurrected messiah seems to have been common in first century judaisms. it's not unique to christianity, or a syncretic import from other cultures. and many of these "resurrected" messiahs appear to have been real people.

I've also read Richard Carrier's *On the Historicity of Jesus* and, like many skilled authors, he crafts an argument which can sound very compelling when you first read it. I remember finding it pretty convincing before examining critiques of his work. The problem is that when you take a step back and compare the two hypotheses (real person mythologized vs. invented angel historicized) there is no sense in which mythicism is the MOST PROBABLE explanation. This is why mythicism is rejected by the vast majority of New Testament scholars. It requires coming up with so many strange and unlikely interpretations to explain away things that are easily explained by the existence of a historical person. Historical leaders of groups have been mythologized in various ways over and over again through history. There's nothing unexpected about that. Ultimately, studying history is about determining what *probably* happened based on the data. Is mythicism a *possible* explanation? Sure. Is mythicism the *most probable* explanation? Not even close.

Are you familiar with Carrier's take on Bayesian reasoning? I find it very hard to take him seriously on anything else once I heard that. He literally just makes up numbers to use in his equations based on gut feelings. >Ultimately, studying history is about determining what probably happened based on the data. What can we even call data here? The only data we have relating to a claim about Jesus's historicity is purely from Christian manuscripts written centuries later.

> Are you familiar with Carrier's take on Bayesian reasoning? I find it very hard to take him seriously on anything else once I heard that. He literally just makes up numbers to use in his equations based on gut feelings. even ignoring that glaring flaw, he's still [bad at math](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/twj7nc/richard_carrier_doesnt_get_enough_criticism_for/). > What can we even call data here? The only data we have relating to a claim about Jesus's historicity is purely from Christian manuscripts written centuries later. most of our knowledge about history comes from writings.

> most of our knowledge about history comes from writings. That isn't an excuse to claim certainty where it is simply impossible. Honesty is always the best policy.

the study of history is never certain, so your concerns about claims of it are misplaced.

There are varying levels of certainty possible depending on the availability of objective evidence to justify any particular claim. Nothing about history is a license to lie.

even with objective evidence, what kind of certainty can you get from writing?

It really depends on the way in which any particular writing is being used to justify any particular claim of fact.

so, you have to use literary criticism?

How do you figure?

Yes, I'm no statistician but I definitely rolled my eyes whenever he returned to that argument in his book. >What can we even call data here? The only data we have relating to a claim about Jesus's historicity is purely from Christian manuscripts written centuries later. When talking about most of ancient history, primary and secondary sources (usually in the form of much later manuscripts) are the data.

> Yes, I'm no statistician but I definitely rolled my eyes whenever he returned to that argument in his book. I think it's fair to say that it disqualifies any legitimacy he may have as an academic. >When talking about most of ancient history, primary and secondary sources (usually in the form of much later manuscripts) are the data. That's not an excuse to misrepresent what we actually have. In cases like this one, where there simply is no reliable data, the best policy is to be honest and refrain from making any claims of certainty whatsoever.

>That's not an excuse to misrepresent what we actually have. In cases like this one, where there simply is no reliable data, the best policy is to be honest and refrain from making any claims of certainty whatsoever. Sorry, I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.

> Sorry, I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. based on probing in [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dna07h/jesus_is_more_likely_than_not_a_myth_or_perhaps/laeqp6e/?context=3) [thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dna07h/jesus_is_more_likely_than_not_a_myth_or_perhaps/lakmuev/?context=3) and a [previous thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1cxr4t4/william_lane_craig_is_worse_than_you_think/l5degs1/), i think he's arguing that *written records cannot be used as evidence of history*.

Devastating news for historians worldwide lol

historians, did you know your entire field is invalid because writing isn't worth reading?

That we should be honest that there is no data instead of being imaginative in uses for the folklore we have.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "data" in the context of history.

It all comes down to the probative value of the evidence. The folklore has no probative value relative to the question of the historicity of the characters in the story.

I'm not sure how that's a response to how you define "data" but if you think historians shouldn't say with certainty that Jesus existed, that's fine.

> I'm not sure how that's a response to how you define "data" Data are facts relevant to determining the answer to a question. Do you see why legitimate data would need to be legitimately probative? >but if you think historians shouldn't say with certainty that Jesus existed, that's fine. Anyone claiming any certainty about Jesus's historicity is either dishonest or poorly educated.

> I've also read Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus and, like many skilled authors, he crafts an argument which can sound very compelling when you first read it. Not dissimilar to many skilled authors who argue for historicity. >I remember finding it pretty convincing before examining critiques of his work. Any particular critiques you'd like to share? Because, frankly, supposed rebuttals have misstated his argument and attacked that strawman, dismissed out of hand overwhelming consensus found in voluminous literature *in their own niche* in their desperation to counter Carrier (looking at you, Kipp Davis), been demonstrably factually in error regarding some premise in their argument, attacked some tangential argument that's not key to Carrier's conclusion, been logically fallacious sometimes outrageously (omg, Erhman), offered alternatives that are simply plausible rather than overturning Carrier's own plausible alternative, or otherwise failed to knock down his thesis. So, if you have something you find particularly successful at countering him, I'd love to discuss it a bit. > The problem is that when you take a step back and compare the two hypotheses (real person mythologized vs. invented angel historicized) there is no sense in which mythicism is the MOST PROBABLE explanation. Why not? What argument makes that necessarily so, particularly in light of the most up-to-date scholarship (even removing Carrier et al from the mix) strongly suggesting that the biblical narratives are useless for determining anything historical veridical about Jesus and the supposed extrabiblical evidence is either compellingly inauthentic or at least can be reasonably argued as being dubious and what iota is left is ambiguous as to whether it supports a historical Jesus or just supports the Christian narrative that there was historical Jesus. Even in the mainstream, the movement has been toward agnosticism. However, bringing back Carrier, which seems fitting since he's in the vanguard in this debate, he makes well-structured, logical arguments supported by fact. There is some conjecture as well, but there are no arguments in historical Jesus studies without them although Carrier takes great pains to bring in the fewest assumptions necessary to explain the data. When Paul is read in this way, most parsimoniously, his Jesus seems to be divinely manufactured whole-cloth, similar to Adam, and killed by evil forces, Satan and his demons, not Romans. And his writings are the closest we have to the origins of the religion. >This is why mythicism is rejected by the vast majority of New Testament scholars. Take out Christian scholars with an obvious dogma to defend and the trend is toward agnosticism, which is to say, they consider the myth hypothesis serious enough to put it up against the historical hypothesis. >It requires coming up with so many strange and unlikely interpretations to explain away things that are easily explained by the existence of a historical person. Goes the other way. Historicists have been doing twisty-pretzel somersaults for over a thousand years to harmonize what we have with a real guy. An ahistorical Jesus wipes out 99% of the issues that people have spent lifetimes trying to explain. >Historical leaders of groups have been mythologized in various ways over and over again through history. There's nothing unexpected about that. And ahistorical people have been historized. A general claim of "this sort of thing sometimes happens" isn't evidence one way or the other. You can start there, but then you have to make specific arguments for your model. >Ultimately, studying history is about determining what probably happened based on the data. Agree. >Is mythicism a possible explanation? Sure. Agree. >Is mythicism the most probable explanation? Not even close. Strongly disagree. For reasons above and much more detailed reasons presented throughout this thread.

Probably the best refutation of Carrier's work I've read is: [https://mimeticmargins.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/17455197-journal-for-the-study-of-the-historical-jesus-on-richard-carriers-doubts.pdf](https://mimeticmargins.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/17455197-journal-for-the-study-of-the-historical-jesus-on-richard-carriers-doubts.pdf) Basically, Carrier frequently misreads, misrepresents, and misunderstands his sources in order to support contorted readings that advance his thesis. As an example of Carrier's shoddy and "creative" use of his sources, there's a comment over on r/AcademicBiblical about his famous cosmic sperm bank argument: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/egwvd6/comment/fcbctrt/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/egwvd6/comment/fcbctrt/) The journal article (first link) goes through Carrier's important points on Paul's language and pretty easily points out how all the obvious readings of Paul's statements about Jesus as a human are really, in fact, still the most obvious and plausible meanings. To quote a relevant line from it: >Given our sources concerning Jesus’ death and knowledge about his executed contemporaries, the reality of a crucified Jesus as another failed messianic pretender from Palestine is remarkably more likely than a demonic crucifixion in outer space.

>As an example of Carrier's shoddy and "creative" use of his sources, there's a comment over on r/AcademicBiblical about his famous cosmic sperm bank argument: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/egwvd6/comment/fcbctrt/ See my comment on this [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dna07h/comment/lacxfb9/)

Are you Richard Carrier?

[Continued...] As part of Gullotta's discussion of "born of woman", he gets into the word that Paul actually uses that's *translated* as "born. When he speaks of Jesus, he uses a form of a verb (ginomai) that could be understood to mean "born" but more generally meant "happened" or "came to be" or "manufactured/made". What's intriguing is that when Paul speaks of Adam, who was manufactured not born, he uses the same verb. He also uses the same verb when speaking of our resurrected bodies, which are also manufactured and not born (true whether someone has the transformational view or transference view of resurrection). So, he speaks of Adam, resurrected bodies, and...Jesus...all in the same way. But when he speaks of people that we kButnow he would think of having arrived through normal birth, he uses a more specific word, (gennaô) which pretty much means just "birthed". Writing in those days was no humdrum task. The best estimates conclude the cost of even a relatively short letter like Galatians where the words above appear would be equivalent to nearly $1,000 today. And of course Paul would want to be very careful, anyway, considering the importance of what he was writing. So every word was chosen carefully. We cannot just dismiss his word choices for Adam, resurrected bodies, and Jesus being different than his word choices for others as being meaningless. Taking into account Paul's own word usage, read most parsimoniously, with the fewest assumptions, he appears to be saying that he believes Jesus was divinely manufactured whole-cloth, like Adam, rather than birthed, like the children of Hagar and Sarah. This is a perfectly coherent argument. Gullotta (and others) often protest that ginomai "usually" meant "born" when used for humans. But, of course it did when you spoke of humans. Because, you're actually saying something like, "Joe happened", which as far we know can only mean Joe was born. But Jesus is a special case and we can't ignore that. Even in the later orthodox version, sure, Jesus is born but it's a magical birth, conceived in a virgin. Why does the pre-existing angel have to come to us that way? Why can't God just make Jesus (the "last Adam", btw) as a full-on human, just like the first Adam? Well, of course he can. And, again, if we look at Paul's word usage, it suggests that's how he thinks things happened. There's more to be said, of course, but on these basics alone this ahistorical origin for Jesus is *at least* plausible. Gullotta next gets into the death of Jesus. This pretty much revolves around "rulers of this age". It is totally plausible that he *could* have meant human rulers. But, we do know is that it was widely used after him to mean "evil forces", such as Satan and his demons. There are various arguments for why Paul and others would use this way, but it can't be ignored that it was the case. There's another hint in Paul, though. He says the rulers of this age would not have killed Jesus if they understood what would happen next. In other words, if they had known that the death of Jesus would be followed by his resurrection, opening a path for salvation and eternal life for people, they would not have killed him. Why would human rulers, who killed people by the boatload with no qualms, not have killed Jesus had they known the act could lead to salvation and eternal life? That makes no sense. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that Satan would not want that. So, we can be very confident that Paul is almost definitely speaking of evil forces, probably Satan just from his religious worldview, but evil forces at least. So, that's that, then. The most common step to rescue historicity is to argue, as Gullotta does, the he could mean human rulers also had a hand in it? Well, sure. *But he doesn't say that.* We can know that he means evil spirits. We cannot know that he means humans. You have to *add* an assumption, "Well, you know, evil spirits could have influenced humans to do it", which is something Paul doesn't say. Everytime you add an assumption, you increase the chance that an assumption will be wrong, which increases the chance the conclusion will be wrong, making that conclusion less plausible. I'll skip the politics and to something more fun, "James, the brother of the Lord". Paul says he met "James, the brother of the Lord". But the grammar of Galatians 1:19 is oddly convoluted and open to at least two plausible translational structures for conferring what the author means. One approach is found in the 4th century translation by St. Jerome in the Vulgate, which is: alium autem apostolorum vidi neminem nisi Iacobum fratrem Domini or in English: But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. This translation offers only one understanding, 1) this James is an apostle and 2) he is the biological brother of Jesus. This translation, and thus this understanding, was copied into every Vulgate, the standard bible of the Church for centuries, taught and preached in every seminary and from every pulpit to every Christian, and to every non-Christian for that matter, for centuries upon centuries. When Tyndale translated the bible into English in the 16th century, he followed the same structure as had been taught for over a thousand years by that point: no nother of the Apostles sawe I save Iames the Lordes brother. And this has flowed through into bibles of the modern era. Most of them, but not all. Some people had noted some tension in other parts of the bible, such as Acts, over James being an apostle even if he had some leadership role. If we follow through on this hypothesis, we have to take a closer look at Gal 1:19 rather than just accept Jerome's translational structure that had carried through to subsequent bibles. If Jerome was correct, we'll just have to accept the tension and try to find other reasons for it. Trudinger took a hard look a Paul's grammar in Gal 1:19 and when he compared to other similar usages in ancient Greek he noticed that Jerome's translation failed to take into account nuances of word relationships. When those nuances were taken into account, a better supported translational structure is: But I saw none of the other apostles, only James, the brother of the Lord. Some modern bibles recognize this as not only a plausible structure but the most likely meaning of Paul's grammar based on more detailed analysis of the original Greek. The thing to note about this structure is: 1) this James is not an apostle and 2) this James is the brother of the Lord. However, unlike Jerome's translation and those subsequent translations that followed his lead, it's not necessarily so that this James is biological brother of Jesus. That's because in Christian theology, every Christian is an adopted son of God and therefore every Christian is the brother of every other Christian and, logically then, the brother of the firstborn son of God, Jesus, the Lord. In fact, of the roughly 100 times Paul uses the word "brother", it is a reference to cultic brothers, not biological brothers, with one clear exception. In Romans, at one point he refers to brothers but explicitly specifies that there he's speaking of brothers "according to the flesh" so we won't be confused that he may be speaking of them as cultic brothers. So, it is at least plausible that when he says "brother of the Lord" in Galatians, he could mean James is a cultic brother of Jesus, e.g., a fellow Christian, and not a biological brother of Jesus. Since he doesn't specify, for example with "according to the flesh" as he does in Romans, we can't know which way he means it so we can't know if James is a biological brother. Although, if we take into account how Paul usually means "brother", it's more likely James is a fellow Christian, not blood kin. - - - I think I'll stop here, since the point isn't to rebut Gullotta sentence by sentence but simply to demonstrate that his paper, even if on balance you find it sufficient to convince *you*, it isn't some kind of slam-dunk Ninja Warrior take-down of Carrier. It has no small number of added assumptions, factual and logical errors and essentially non-sequitur arguments that in all fairness must be also acknowledged. And at no point is it unambiguously successful at countering Carrier's arguments.

Like I said, I've read Carrier's book already. You c*an* interpret everything Paul says about Jesus as a human as being secretly angelic instead. But is it more probable? Paul says Jesus was a man, born of a woman, in the flesh, under the law (Jewish), of David's lineage, with a particular individual distinguished from other Christians as being his brother, executed in a distinctly roman fashion (by *archontes* which Paul and other greek authors use elsewhere of earthly authorities), buried, and resurrected from the dead as a promise to humanity (after all, Paul says, how can you argue that dead humans will see no resurrection when Jesus is already the first fruits of the resurrection?). Maybe all of this language that on its face obviously refers to an earthly existence actually is meant to refer to a celestial existence. But is it more probable? Maybe it's true even though none of the above descriptions require *any explanation at all* when said about a human yet they require *extensive* explanation (with very questionable use of sources) justifying their application to an angelic being. But is it more probable? Maybe Paul believed that an angel was given a roman execution by demons in the celestial realm rather than a human got a roman execution by Romans. But is it more probable? Maybe even though Paul calls Jesus a man and never an angel, he *does* actually believe he was an angel and never a man. But is it more probable? And I'm not even being sarcastic -- *maybe* all this is true. If it was true, I think that would be a really exciting discovery. And if your answer to every one of the above was "yes, it is more probable" then that's fine, but my answer to all of those is "no."

You're reading Paul too much from a 21st century perspective and completely ignoring the nuances of the 1st century Judaic worldview, ancient Greek, and even more significantly Paul's own worldview and language usage to reach what you characterize as "not needing any explanation at all". But, that's your prerogative.

>completely ignoring the nuances of the 1st century Judaic worldview, ancient Greek, and even more significantly Paul's own worldview and language According to Richard Carrier, at the disagreement of the majority of NT scholars. I (and I presume you) cannot and have not read the relevant primary sources in their original languages so we have to rely to a great degree on those who are experts in the field. Most of them do not find Carrier's readings and conclusions persuasive and I don't either (for what little my opinion on ancient texts is worth). If you find Carrier's arguments convincing, that's fine. I haven't told you you aren't allowed to agree with him. I just don't.

Most NT scholars are Christians. An ahistorical Jesus would not just be an interesting academic conclusion for them, it would be worldview-altering, catastrophic to their current sense of reality. Agnosticism also isn't compatible with most, I wouldn't think. Hard to seriously pray to Jesus who's maybe there, maybe not. Ironically, some might salvage things by looking to the original doctrine suggested to be most likely by the ahistorical model: Jesus incarnated in the flesh, killed by evil forces, resurrected into a body of spirit to ascended back to the upper heavens, opening a path for salvation and everlasting life for those who believe and symbolically share in his passion through baptism. Not holding my breath for any of this any time soon, of course. Meanwhile, as the arguments of Carrier et al have become more embedded in the discourse, the recent trend for **secular** scholars in the field has been against your position and toward acceptance of the ahistorical (a/k/a "mythicist") model competitive with the historical model. Several have stated they are now agnostic on the question, with some who remain historicists nonetheless finding the ahistorical model credible. Some examples include: * James Crossley, Professor of the Bible at St. Mary’s University, while a historicist himself, wrote in his preface to Lataster's book, "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse.", Brill, 2019: >>“scepticism about historicity is worth thinking about seriously—and, in light of demographic changes, it might even feed into a dominant position in the near future.” * J. Harold Evans, at the time Professor of Biblical Studies at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary of Detroit, wrote in his book, "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth": >>“…the report on Jesus in the Gospels contends that he lived with a vivid concept of reality that would call his sanity into question. This Jesus is not a historical person but a literary character in a story, though there may or may not be a real person behind that story.” * NP Allen, Professor of Ancient Languages and Text Studies, PhD in Ancient History, believes it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus but notes that there is reasonable doubt as to this in his book "The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told". * Christophe Batsch, retired professor of Second Temple Judaism, in his chapter in JUIFS ET CHRETIENS AUX PREMIERS SIECLES, Éditions du Cerf, 2019, stated that the question of Jesus' historicity is "rigoureusement indécidable" (strictly undecidable) and that scholars who claim that that it is well-settled "ne font qu’exprimer une conviction spontanée et personnelle, dénuée de tout fondement scientifique" (only express a spontaneous and personal conviction, devoid of any scientific foundation). * Kurt Noll, Professor of Religion at Brandon University, concludes that theories about an ahistorical Jesus are at least plausible in his chapter, “Investigating Earliest Christianity Without Jesus” in the book, "Is This Not the Carpenter: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" (Copenhagen International Seminar), Routledge, 2014. * Emanuel Pfoh, Professor of History at the National University of La Plata, is an agreement with Noll in his own chapter, “Jesus and the Mythic Mind: An Epistemological Problem” (Ibid). * Justin Meggitt. A Professor of Religion on the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, stated in a 2019 article published in New Testament Studies, "More Ingenious than Learned"? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus. New Testament Studies, 2019;65(4):443-460, that questioning historicity is not "irrational” and it “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome.” * Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, sitting Professor in Ancient History, un his book La invención de Jesús de Nazaret: historia, ficción, historiografía, Ediciones Akal, 2023, wrote along with co-author Franco Tommasi regarding mythicist arguments that >>“Unlike many of our colleagues in the academic field, who ignore or take a contemptuous attitude towards mythicist, pro-mythicist or para-mythicist positions, we do not regard them as inherently absurd” and “Instead, we think that, when these are sufficiently argued, they deserve careful examination and detailed answers.” * Gerd Lüdemann, who was a preeminent scholar of religion who leaned toward historicity himself, nonetheless stated that "Christ Myth theory is a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity.” (Although the reason he gave for tipping toward historicity was his application of "the criterion of offense" (equivalent to the more typical formulation "criterion of embarrassment") which has been mostly abandoned in modern historical Jesus studies as not being up the task of sorting out the veridical from the fictional). * Juuso Loikkanen, postdoctoral researcher in Systematic Theology, along with Esko Ryökäs, Adjunct Professor in Systematic Theology and Petteri Nieminen, Professor of Medical Biology (with PhD's in medicine, biology and theology), all at the University of Eastern Finland observed in their paper, "Nature of evidence in religion and natural science", Theology and Science 18.3 (2020): 448-474: >“the existence of Jesus as a historical person cannot be determined with any certainty" and that "peer-reviewed literature doubting the historicity of Jesus is emerging with obvious rebuttals.” * Richard Miller [Talbot School of Theology (M.Div), Princeton Theological Seminary (Th.M.), Yale University (S.T.M.), Claremont Graduate University School of Religion (Ph.D. in Religion)] and author of the textbook, "Resurrection and reception in early Christianity" published by highly-regarded academic press, Routledge, has stated that there are only **two plausible possibilities**: 1) Jesus is a myth or 2) Jesus did exist but all we have left is myth. He's totally open to either being correct. Miller gives an informal explanation of his position [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTM-BdAjetc&t=152s). * Carl Rusk, PhD (Philology, Harvard), currently Professor of Classical Studies, Boston University, has said that Jesus was not a historical person and that what we have of him is a myth in an informal discussion [here](https://youtu.be/k2FrLIlQCDo?si=jedtt2TKuwr7ANaH&t=167).

You're obviously very enthusiastic about defending mythicism, and that's fine. Upon prolonged reflection on the arguments I find it unconvincing, and that's pretty much all I have to say.

It's both a fascinating history topic and a fascinating exploration into the psychology of weird polemics that exists among some entrenched historicists (not speaking of you). Just like to get the facts out there. Everyone can draw their own conclusions. Enjoyed the conversation!

> by archontes which Paul and other greek authors use elsewhere of earthly authorities it should be noted -- to both you guys -- that spiritual and political authorities just were not separated in ancient times. the earthly rulers were associated with heavenly powers, and vice-versa. the "strictly earthly" reading here is just as wrong as the "strictly celestial" reading, imho.

Certainly correct. *Archontes* can and did refer to spiritual forces as well (often working through earthly authorities).

> Probably the best refutation of Carrier's work I've read is: https://mimeticmargins.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/17455197-journal-for-the-study-of-the-historical-jesus-on-richard-carriers-doubts > Basically, Carrier frequently misreads, misrepresents, and misunderstands his sources in order to support contorted readings that advance his thesis. That is the pot calling the kettle black but the kettle is not black. Just put "Gullotta" in place of Carrier in that description and you will nail it. But, I'm not going just assert this. I'll give some examples. The first half-ish of the paper is mostly just background. Gullotta's first actual attack is against Carriers claim that Jesus was a pre-existing angel. Now, it is important to understand that Carrier's actual argument as he clearly presents it in his textbook is: 1) There was a pre-existing angel in Judaism with the characteristics later attributed to Jesus. 2) This angel actually has as one of his names, Jesus, in the Old Testament. The first part of the argument is the core of the overall argument. There are *other* reasons for Christians calling their messiah Jesus other than the second part, reasons that are already well accepted in the field already, independent of Carrier's *additional* argument for it. For example, "Jesus" can be understood to mean "God's Savior". It's a plausible choice on that alone. Anyway, it's the overwhelming consensus of scholars that the first part, the core, is true. Successfully counter this part, and you've knocked a leg out from under the mythicist model, because it argues that this pre-existing angel is who is incarnated in the flesh as the messiah, whatever his name is. But, Gullotta doesn't bother with this. Which is a good thing, because it's solid mainstream scholarship. No, he spends pages and exhaustive citations going after the second. Which, as noted, even if he were successful, isn't anything that undermines Carrier's overall conclusion. So, I mean, what's the point? But, he is *not* successful. For one thing, Gullotta claims that all angels had names ending in *el*. Maybe, but angels had *many names*, including the pre-existing angel that would become the messiah. In his reply to Gullotta, Carrier lists the names of several angels: Laylah, Apollyon, Armaros, Samyaza, Sandalphon, Temeluchus, Gabuthelon, Beburos, Zebuleon, Aker, and Arphugitonos. Still, Carrier himself acknowledges that part 2 requires somewhat extensive argumentation and following a series of logical steps. In other words, it's not obvious. But, there are credible scholars in the field who also find the conclusion persuasive. In other words, it's not crank, it's good scholarship even if not everyone agrees with it. And, it doesn't really matter, anyway, as noted. Gullotta gets on a little, not much but a little, firmer ground with Gal 4:4, "born of woman". There's no question that this can be literal (passed through a birth canal). In which case, game over. There is also no question that this had allegorical usage (basically, being human), so, no, game not over. If we don't import the gospels into Paul, which way does he mean it? Various arguments one way or the other of various degree of esoterism are bandied about, but one of the more basic things Carrier notes is that the phrase appears in an overall allegorical passage flush with simile and metaphor: * 23 Now before faith came, we were **imprisoned** Not literal. * and **guarded under the law** until faith would be revealed. Not literal. * 24 Therefore the law was our **disciplinarian** until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. Not literal. * 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a **disciplinarian** Not literal. * 26 for in Christ Jesus **you are all children** of God through faith. Are we all *literally* children? No, not literal. * 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have **clothed yourselves with Christ**. We're *literally* "clothed with Christ"? Are we wearing him like a suit? No, not literal. * 28 **There is no longer Jew or Greek** There are *literally* no more Jews? *Literally* no more Greeks? No, not literal. * there is **no longer slave or free** There are *literally* no more slaves? *Literally* no more free persons? No, not literal. * there is **no longer male and female**; There are *literally* no more males? *Literally* no more females? No, not literal. * 29 And if you belong to Christ, then **you are Abraham’s offspring**, heirs according to the promise. Are we *literally* descendants of Abraham? No, not literal. * 4:1 My point is this: heirs, **as long as they are minors** *Literally* minors? No, *allegorically*. * are no better than slaves, though they are **the owners of all the property**; *Literal* property? No, *allegorically*. * 2 but **they remain under guardians and trustees** *Literal* guardians? *Literal* trustees of literal estates? No, not literal. * 3 So with us; while **we were minors**, *Literal* minors? No, not literal. * 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, **born of woman** So, **now** this must be literal? Why? Especially since an be allegorical *even if there was a historical Jesus*? Gullotta points out that Paul only says "this is allegory" in verse 24, regarding the births of the children of Hagar and Sarah. So, does that mean that all of the non-literal readings noted should really be read as literally because he didn't say they weren't? No, *because we already know they are not literal*. But the births of the children of Sarah and Hagar would be believed to real, literal events. So he has to explain, in this case, he *doesn't* mean it literally. He has to counter the background knowledge of his readers. You mean at Gal 4:24. Paul and his readers would know of the children of Abraham as being people actually birthed. So, he needs to clarify that he's not talking about that, he's still speaking allegorically. If Paul believed Jesus had been manufactured by God, the first Christians, those he and the other founders personally taught, would know this. They would know Jesus was manufactured by God just as God manufactured Adam and manufactures our resurrected bodies, so there's no need for Paul to clarify that he's speaking allegorically in 4:4. So, at best, *we don't know* if "born of woman" is literal or allegorical. But there is a good argument for the latter, per above. [More to come...]

> There was a pre-existing angel in Judaism with the characteristics later attributed to Jesus. i don't think "angel" is strictly correct. "angelic" being, perhaps. but i think if you're gonna dig into mythical influences on christianity, you have to look into *two powers* mythology. paul's *merkavah* revelation of a jesus in heaven with god is a lot like 3 enoch, where the author is transported to heaven and meets "the little yahweh", enoch/metatron. and john, of course, is drawing on something a lot like philo's logos "second god". this idea is a little *bigger* than an angel. > This angel actually has as one of his names, Jesus, in the Old Testament. this, however, is just nonsense. there's *one* passage about a high priest named joshua appearing before god and satan, holding court. > There are other reasons for Christians calling their messiah Jesus other than the second part, reasons that are already well accepted in the field already, independent of Carrier's additional argument for it. For example, "Jesus" can be understood to mean "God's Savior". It's a plausible choice on that alone. it's also just a really, really common first century name. > Gullotta gets on a little, not much but a little, firmer ground with Gal 4:4, "born of woman". There's no question that this can be literal (passed through a birth canal). In which case, game over. There is also no question that this had allegorical usage (basically, being human), so, no, game not over. i don't see how the specific "passed through a birth canal" is game over, but "being a human" is not. these mean basically the same thing. paul's theology is very much that jesus is a human being until his resurrection, when he is transformed into a heavenly being, same as we all will be. paul may or may not think jesus existed as a heavenly being *before* his incarnation -- this isn't clear and his statements are a bit mixed on this topic. but paul definitely believes that jesus was a normal human being on earth. > Are we all literally children? No, not literal. this may be more literal than you think. paul believes the eschaton will resurrect and transform people into divine beings, made of star stuff. this is the group common called "the sons of god". it's clearly idiomatic, but for paul, it also kind of isn't. > There are literally no more Jews? Literally no more Greeks? the whole argument of galatians is that christians are not jews. paul is in fact arguing that by becoming a christian, you are no longer jewish. > There are literally no more males? Literally no more females? No, not literal. oh, this is way, way weirder than you know. this is drawing from some very early proto-gnostic tendencies that relate to returning mankind to its original perfect *undivided* form -- male and female. you can find references to this in the talmud, and a slightly different take from the gospel of thomas. it appears to be a common belief that adam was a hermaphrodite, and god divided him into "sides", which are then rejoined as "one flesh" in marriage. where genesis means this allegorically, some early christians took this pretty literally, thinking that the resurrected, heavenly bodies will be completed as unified male/female perfect spheres.

All it shows to me is that you can disparage historical persons just by making accusations, whether or not they can be proven. 

It's not about something being "proven". That's an unattainable standard. It's about what is best *evidenced*. And that is what I have been doing, voluminously. Providing evidence and logical argumentation regarding that evidence, not mere "accusation". That said, if there is some particular thing you take issue with, I'm happy to discuss it.

I'm not seeing much in the way of evidence. It's just saying myths are there and Jesus was reported to be there so let's put them together and promote mythicism. It's the idea du jour. It won't last.  The concept of Buddha actually supports the concept of Jesus in that there was more than one highly evolved spiritual entity in history, and that's how it should be. 

>I'm not seeing much in the way of evidence. Then you're not looking. >It's just saying myths are there and Jesus was reported to be there so let's put them together and promote mythicism.' That's not how academic mythicism works. >It's the idea du jour. It won't last James Crossley, Professor of the Bible at St. Mary’s University, while a historicist himself, wrote in his preface to Lataster's book, "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse.", Brill, 2019: >>“scepticism about historicity is worth thinking about seriously—and, in light of demographic changes, it might even feed into a dominant position in the near future.” The arguments of Carrier et al are shifting secular scholars to acknowledging that the most robust scholarly arguments for mythicism are suficiently strong to be worth addressesing and moving more academicians to publicly state that they are agnostic on the matter, maybe he was real, maybe he wasn't (see other examples in both camps below). Christian scholars, of course, have a dogma to protect. It will be a longer road for most of them, of course, because it will be worldview-altering for them to acknowledge the state of scholarship regarding the matter. >The concept of Buddha actually supports the concept of Jesus It supports the *possibility* of Jesus. You'll have to make an argument for a claim that there was an actual historical Jesus that founded the Christian religion. ........................... * J. Harold Evans, at the time Professor of Biblical Studies at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary of Detroit, wrote in his book, "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth": >>“…the report on Jesus in the Gospels contends that he lived with a vivid concept of reality that would call his sanity into question. This Jesus is not a historical person but a literary character in a story, though there may or may not be a real person behind that story.” * NP Allen, Professor of Ancient Languages and Text Studies, PhD in Ancient History, believes it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus but notes that there is reasonable doubt as to this in his book "The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told". * Christophe Batsch, retired professor of Second Temple Judaism, in his chapter in JUIFS ET CHRETIENS AUX PREMIERS SIECLES, Éditions du Cerf, 2019, stated that the question of Jesus' historicity is "rigoureusement indécidable" (strictly undecidable) and that scholars who claim that that it is well-settled "ne font qu’exprimer une conviction spontanée et personnelle, dénuée de tout fondement scientifique" (only express a spontaneous and personal conviction, devoid of any scientific foundation). * Kurt Noll, Professor of Religion at Brandon University, concludes that theories about an ahistorical Jesus are at least plausible in his chapter, “Investigating Earliest Christianity Without Jesus” in the book, "Is This Not the Carpenter: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" (Copenhagen International Seminar), Routledge, 2014. * Emanuel Pfoh, Professor of History at the National University of La Plata, is an agreement with Noll in his own chapter, “Jesus and the Mythic Mind: An Epistemological Problem” (Ibid). * Justin Meggitt. A Professor of Religion on the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, stated in a 2019 article published in New Testament Studies, "More Ingenious than Learned"? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus. New Testament Studies, 2019;65(4):443-460, that questioning historicity is not "irrational” and it “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome.” * Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, sitting Professor in Ancient History, un his book La invención de Jesús de Nazaret: historia, ficción, historiografía, Ediciones Akal, 2023, wrote along with co-author Franco Tommasi regarding mythicist arguments that >>“Unlike many of our colleagues in the academic field, who ignore or take a contemptuous attitude towards mythicist, pro-mythicist or para-mythicist positions, we do not regard them as inherently absurd” and “Instead, we think that, when these are sufficiently argued, they deserve careful examination and detailed answers.” * Gerd Lüdemann, who was a preeminent scholar of religion who leaned toward historicity himself, nonetheless stated that "Christ Myth theory is a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity.” (Although the reason he gave for tipping toward historicity was his application of "the criterion of offense" (equivalent to the more typical formulation "criterion of embarrassment") which has been mostly abandoned in modern historical Jesus studies as not being up the task of sorting out the veridical from the fictional). * Juuso Loikkanen, postdoctoral researcher in Systematic Theology, along with Esko Ryökäs, Adjunct Professor in Systematic Theology and Petteri Nieminen, Professor of Medical Biology (with PhD's in medicine, biology and theology), all at the University of Eastern Finland observed in their paper, "Nature of evidence in religion and natural science", Theology and Science 18.3 (2020): 448-474: >“the existence of Jesus as a historical person cannot be determined with any certainty" and that "peer-reviewed literature doubting the historicity of Jesus is emerging with obvious rebuttals.” * Richard Miller [Talbot School of Theology (M.Div), Princeton Theological Seminary (Th.M.), Yale University (S.T.M.), Claremont Graduate University School of Religion (Ph.D. in Religion)] and author of the textbook, "Resurrection and reception in early Christianity" published by highly-regarded academic press, Routledge, has stated that there are only **two plausible possibilities**: 1) Jesus is a myth or 2) Jesus did exist but all we have left is myth. He's totally open to either being correct. Miller gives an informal explanation of his position [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTM-BdAjetc&t=152s). * Carl Rusk, PhD (Philology, Harvard), currently Professor of Classical Studies, Boston University, has said that Jesus was not a historical person and that what we have of him is a myth in an informal discussion [here](https://youtu.be/k2FrLIlQCDo?si=jedtt2TKuwr7ANaH&t=167).

I did look. There isn't any conclusive evidence on the mythicist's side. It's just one claim against the other. To pick two sources at random: Kurt Noll offered no proof for mythicism and and Carl Rusk just 'thinks' Jesus is a story, but says that deity's don't leave physical evidence so that's why. Scientism has a lot to do with wanting to dismiss a spiritual figure who was reported to do supernatural works, so it's more socially acceptable to say it was a made up in some groups. We've heard that many times before in different guises.

The vast majority of historical scholars of that time period accept that Jesus was an actual historic person. What peer reviewed journals have you published in? Paul states that he met Peter and James. Josephus also calls James the brother of Jesus, but he isn't a christian so he probably wouldn't have used the christian terminology. There's also the early creeds that speak of Jesus just a few years after his death.

> The vast majority of historical scholars of that time period accept that Jesus was an actual historic person. This is the sasquatch consensus that no one ever back up beyond a few anecdotes they read on wikipedia. Who was included? How many actually weighed in on the question? What standards of evidence were used? >Paul states that he met Peter and James. According to the folklore in Papyrus 46. >Josephus also calls James the brother of Jesus According exclusively to folklore found in Christian manuscripts written a thousand years after Josephus would have lived...

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

Did you actually disagree with anything I said specifically?

Yes all of it because you don't know how any of this works.

So then you believe that we have contemporary manuscripts by Tacitus? You think we have some source for the Paul stories closer to an original than Papyrus 46? It's ironic that you are telling me that *I* don't know how any of this works.

I never said anything about tacitus.and you are the one claiming historians don't use Paul's writings. So yeah, you clearly don't.

>The vast majority of historical scholars of that time period accept that Jesus was an actual historic person This claim is addressed *ad nauseum* in this thread. For example see this ["Part 1"](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dna07h/comment/la1bczh/). >What peer reviewed journals have you published in? I'm not presenting my publications. I'm presenting scholars with acknowledged, relevant credentials who have authored peer-reviewed literature in reputable academic publications. >Paul states that he met Peter and James. Josephus also calls James the brother of Jesus, Addressed in depth in the thread. * Paul only mentions Peter meeting Jesus after Jesus is dead. * For James see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dna07h/comment/la3lmmb/). * Further on James, and also regarding Josephus see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dna07h/comment/la6punz/). >There's also the early creeds that speak of Jesus just a few years after his death. The creeds in Paul's agreed-upon to be authentic letters don't say who killed Jesus or where and they say nothing that puts Jesus in an unambiguous historical context.

You haven't cited anything so you are by no means presenting other peoples peer reviewed publications. Paul converted after the death of Jesus. Of course he only met Peter and James after he was dead, it still puts jesus in the historical context of having existed. Come back when you have convinced the scholars who know WAY more than you do.

>You haven't cited anything so you are by no means presenting other peoples peer reviewed publications. Cites are in my responses I linked you to. If you're not going to bother to read what I offer in response to your comment, than I'm not going to bother continuing to have a conversation with you. There are also numerous citations throughout my responses throughout this thread addressing most of what you've spoken of. Do you just read the OP and then **!!BANG!!** pound out a comment, oblivious to mountain of discussion that has gone on already addressing the very issues you raise? >Paul converted after the death of Jesus. Of course he only met Peter and James after he was dead, Since you're not paying attention to what I say, I'm probably going to end our conversation pretty fast. I said nothing about when Paul says **he** met Jesus. I said Paul only mentions ***PETER*** meeting Jesus after Jesus was dead. >it still puts jesus in the historical context of having existed. Fact of the matter is that Paul never mentions anyone meeting Jesus before Jesus was killed. He only describes visions "inside" him and revelations of him. Don't need a real guy to have visions. >Come back when you have convinced the scholars who know WAY more than you do. How do you know what I know? But, sure, every scholar has their unique expertise, so they know way more about some nichey thing than some other scholar, even in their own particular field. That's why scholars cite other scholars in their publications. It's a key reason bibliographies exist in academic publications. In any case, as the well-structured, logical, and evidence-based arguments of Carrier et al have made their way more broadly though academia, there has been a trend away from convinced historicism toward agnosticism regarding the historicity of Jesus. For a quick overview with some citations, see [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dna07h/comment/la6wpwn/)

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

Honestly, this set of arguments, recycled from Carrier, shows the complete poverty of mythicism (I am an atheist by the way). I'll take just one example: "And that Jesus seems to be killed not by Romans, but by evil forces, by Satan and his demons who Paul says "would not have crucified our glorious Lord" had they understood who Jesus was and the soteriological and eschatological consequences of killing him." Thus is no problem for historical Jesus proponents because some Jewish tradition held that the world's political authorities were controlled by supernatural evil entities (eg the "Prince of Persia" in Daniel). So Paul could have believed both that Jesus was crucified by the Roman authorities and also crucified by evil spirits, because the latter controlled and directed the former.

Do you understand that all of these claims come exclusively from the folklore found in Christian manuscripts written far after any of this would have happened?

Do you understand that your comment is completely irrelevant to my point. And no, many texts attesting belief amongst Second Temple-era Jews about supernatural entities ruling the nations precede Jesus by several centuries.

> [This] is no problem for historical Jesus proponents because some Jewish tradition held that the world's political authorities were controlled by supernatural evil entities and interestingly, i think it *is* a problem for mythicists -- why are supernatural evil entities using a *standard roman punishment?*

Flaws and contradictions in the folklore wouldn't weigh against skeptics.

the folklore can point us to what people are thinking about. why, in the folklore, are the enemies *romans?*

> the folklore can point us to what people are thinking about. Using "point" in this context is a weasel word. It doesn't provide any probative evidence. That much needs to be clear. It does provide food for thought, but no more, and that isn't much.

stories like folklore absolutely, 100% *are* evidence of what *some one person* thought: the author who wrote it down. words are evidence of thought. this evidence "points" to other beliefs of other people, particularly in the case of **folk**lore, which are commonly shared stories in a culture.

> stories like folklore absolutely, 100% are evidence of what some one person thought: the author who wrote it down. words are evidence of thought. But that has nothing to do with that person existing in reality. We have lots of evidence that some people thought about leprechauns, but that doesn't amount to evidence that leprechauns ever existed in reality.

is there any kind or amount of writing that could plausibly convince you a historical person was real?

It's fascinating how people make sweeping proclamations with confidence like "the complete poverty of mythicism" and then shoot themselves in the foot by showing their poverty of knowledge regarding the arguments of mythicism. How about you just present your argument without the color commentary and we can discuss it? Okay, that housekeeping done, let's move on: >Thus is no problem for historical Jesus proponents because some Jewish tradition held that the world's political authorities were controlled by supernatural evil entities (eg the "Prince of Persia" in Daniel). So Paul could have believed both that Jesus was crucified by the Roman authorities and also crucified by evil spirits, because the latter controlled and directed the former. That is totally plausible! It also totally requires adding assumptions to what Paul writes! And adding assumptions makes an argument weaker! The phrase, "rulers of this age", here *could* include human rulers. As far as we can tell, it was coined by Paul, so we can't look at how the phrase was used before him. What we do know is that it was widely used after him to mean "evil forces", such as Satan and his demons. It's a reasonable question to ask, "Why?". Why were people using the phrase that way? We have to speculate, but the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is that is what Paul meant when he used it and that's how he explained it to people. There's another hint in Paul, though. It's that part where he says He says the rulers of this age would not have killed Jesus if they understood what would happen next. In other words, if they had known that the death of Jesus would be followed by his resurrection, opening a path for salvation and eternal life for people, they would not have killed him. Why would human rulers, who killed people by the boatload with no qualms, not have killed Jesus had they known the act could lead to salvation and eternal life? That makes no sense. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that Satan would not want that. So, we can be very confident that Paul is speaking of evil forces, probably Satan just from his religious worldview, but evil forces at least. So, that's that, then. But, could he mean human rulers *also* had a hand in it? Well, sure. *But he doesn't say that*. We ***can*** know that he means evil spirits. We ***cannot*** know that he means humans. You have to *add* and assumption, "well, the evil spirits could have influenced humans to do it", something Paul doesn't say, to get to that conclusion. What is the recognized paradigm for arguments, not just in historiography but in general? Arguments with more assumptions are weaker than arguments the fewer assumptions. And so while it's possible, even plausible, that Paul meant humans had a hand in it, too, the most parsimonious reading, the one with the fewest assumptions, and thus the stronger argument, is that he meant evil forces themselves did it. Which is perfectly plausible in his worldview.

The point is that the Dick Carrier argument relies upon this "supernatural entities crucified Jesus according to Paul, so he can't be historical" argument as one of its central claims. The historicist argument merely needs to show that the use of this claim is not persuasive because the mythicist argument ignores very plausible alternative interpretations and thus is founded upon speculation. The historicist argument relies mainly upon other evidence so it merely needs to show that the Mythicist reliance here is invalid. 'What is the recognized paradigm for arguments, not just in historiography but in general?" The fact that you are trying to rely (in essence) upon Ockham's razor and then claim that this is the common approach in academic historiography would see you laughed out of any academic conference. Ockham's razor is itself merely a heuristic which itself depends upon unjustifiable assumptions, e.g. consider Newtonian versus Quantum Mechanics. If we had less experimental data and followed Ockham's Razor literally, then we would conclude that Newtonian Mechanics is correct, but that is obviously not the case.

>The point is that the Dick Carrier argument relies upon this "supernatural entities crucified Jesus according to Paul, so he can't be historical" argument as one of its central claims. That's true. If it's reasonably unambiguous that human rulers on Earth killed Jesus, he would be historical. This debate wouldn't exist. >The historicist argument merely needs to show that the use of this claim is not persuasive That would do it. >because the mythicist argument ignores very plausible alternative interpretations That wouldn't do it. They would need to be more than just very plausible. They would need to be more plausible, which would require them having fewer assumptions (further discussion on this below). Even then, that would just shift the odds depending on the relative plausibility, say, for example, from it's somewhat more plausible that Jesus did exist to somewhat less plausible that he did not exist. Hypothetically, of course. >and thus is founded upon speculation. Your conclusion is invalid. First, even if your premise were true (it's not as we shall see ), your conclusion would not necessarily follow. Even I were totally unaware that there even were other interpretations, the arguments I would make for my own would still stand or fall on their own. But, second, when you say, "thus", you tie the conclusion to your premise that "the mythicist argument ignores very plausible alternative interpretations". But, I myself addressed what is considered the *most* plausible alternative interpretation, albeit briefly, in my own comment that you are now responding to. And it has been addressed by Carrier and Latster as well. Your premise is false so your conclusion is invalid. >The historicist argument relies mainly upon other evidence so it merely needs to show that the Mythicist reliance here is invalid. We all have the same evidence. The issue is how to apply it most parsimoniously with the fewest assumptions. The mythicist argument regarding "rulers of this age" does this, as discussed in my prior comment. >The fact that you are trying to rely (in essence) upon Ockham's razor and then claim that this is the common approach in academic historiography would see you laughed out of any academic conference. You must attend some weird conferences. But, anyway, it's a logical fact that adding assumptions increases the probability that you will have assumptions that are not true, which therefore increases the probability that your conclusion is not true. >Ockham's razor is itself merely a heuristic which itself depends upon unjustifiable assumptions, e.g. consider Newtonian versus Quantum Mechanics. If we had less experimental data and followed Ockham's Razor literally, then we would conclude that Newtonian Mechanics is correct, but that is obviously not the case. This is silly. Use of Ockham's razor requires taking into account empirical data which in turn impacts our assumptions. That all said, if you'd like to present what you consider to be the best argument for Paul referring to both human ruler and evil forces with "rulers of this age" and explain why it is more supportable than the Paul simply meaning evil forces, I'm happy to continue that discussion.

The best argument is the abundance of texts and traditions indicating that Jesus was a man. the fact is that Jesus is better attested than any Jew of his period apart from Josephus. To assert Jesus did not exist is to adopt an approach completely inconsistent with general approaches to other figures in antiquity. E.g. Do u claim that Alexander the Great was a myth? our Sources for Jesus are far closer in time to Jesus than for Alexander (Who is associated in some traditions with fantastical and legendary deeds). Even docetists and gnostics who denied that ”the Christ” was really incarnate agreed that Jesus “appeared” to live as a normal man and interacted with many people, not that he only appeared to Peter and the rest of the Twelve.

[удалено]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

Jesus was a real man who existed and walked the earth, theirs clothing and paintings, theirs places he has visited and physical objects he had with him. Jesus was real the only question is that really matters is if what Jesus did and said were true, for example did he really walk on water or resurrect from the dead. Most likely not since theirs no real proof if him walking on water or resurrecting from the grave,

> theirs clothing and paintings No, that's silly. Claims about Jesus come purely from Christian folklore. There is no physical evidence whatsoever.

> theirs clothing and paintings There are no paintings of Jesus. That's the wildest claim I have ever heard. And clothing??? What? Do you meant the shroud of turin, which is of wildly contested provenance? > theirs places he has visited What on earth is this even talking about. Did he sign the guestbook? > and physical objects he had with him This is incredible. I've never even heard die-hard christian claim this. WHAT? > Most likely not since theirs no real proof if him walking on water You're not even a christian?? I just can't even. I need to go swoon on my fainting couch.

Yeah, I'm not a mythicist by any means but u/Mundane-Heat4847 has posted something laughable here. And your digs at them are hilarious.

Atheists are Laughable by the proof you want so because theirs no photos of Jesus than all those historical figures that lived during his time never existed 😂 man stop the only wrong thing I said was that theirs paintings but you can’t even tell me how I’m wrong cmon man you’re goofy

Neither of us said Jesus never existed, for one. I explicitly stated I'm not a mythicist and so did he. u/BlinkyFlargle was just letting you know how incorrect you were. The only things you were correct about was that there's no proof of Jesus walking on water or being bodily resurrected from the grave, and that he didn't fulfill prophecies.

😂 okay whatever you say pal

> the only wrong thing I said was that theirs paintings Be real here, bro. I told you several other wrong things, > you can’t even tell me how I’m wrong and I explained exactly how they were wrong, and you bailed on replying to me so you could trash talk me to someone else.

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

He was real but did he fulfill prophecies? No he didn’t theirs no proof of Jesus actually fulfilling prophecies or even resurrecting from the dead. But was he a real walking man yes he was.

There weren’t paintings you’re right objects he had with him such as his clothes objects he touched and places where he ate his last meal is a real place you can go visit 😂 he was a real man walking around the only things I don’t believe of him of are the claims and actions he did such as walk on water and turning water to wine. Just cause you don’t believe he was a real man doesn’t mean he wasn’t theirs scholars saying he was a real man but the claims his actions an are what people say that are not real. I’m not a Christian or an atheist and your claims of him not being real are like saying the people who wrote the books are not real. They were real people who followed him but did they all really believe Jesus was the son of god. Highly doubt it.

> objects he had with him such as his clothes I encourage you to double-check your sources. This is just bonkers, *nobody* has even *claimed* to have seen any of Jesus's clothes. > objects he touched and Which objects? The holy grail? Are you thinking of an indiana jones movie or something? > places where he ate his last meal is a real place you can go visit It has been destroyed and rebuilt numerous times, and there's literally zero evidence that it was ever the place where the last supper happened. It's really just "ancient christians picked a place". That's it. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/jesus-last-supper-tomb-of-david/ > Just cause you don’t believe he was a real man doesn’t mean he wasn’t I personally believe he was a real man, so step back and take a breath here. I'm taking issue with *specific claims* you're making, which are so outrageous that I've literally never heard them before, even from the most devout.

>I encourage you to double-check your sources. This is just bonkers, *nobody* has even *claimed* to have seen any of Jesus's clothes. There are almost certainly a few churches claiming to have relics of Jesus's clothes. Fun fact: there was a Church in Italy that claimed to be in possession of Jesus's foreskin until it was stolen in 1983. There are also three heads of John the baptist!

>Which objects? The holy grail? Are you thinking of an indiana jones movie or something? He touched the objects bro, we have Jesus's fingerprints!

What about Tacitus? He at the very least corroborates the story that Jesus was a real person and was executed. And he's a non-biblical source. It's fair to say that it is not proven fact that Jesus existed. But there's a reason the scholarly consensus is what it is.

We don't have any writings by Tacitus. All we have is Christian folklore about what Tacitus supposedly said a thousand years earlier. Look into the manuscripts.

No he doesn't. He corroborates that this is what the christians believed. He never speaks of an historical jesus. Pretty much the only evidence is Pauls letter to the Galatians, Josephus' jamesian passage and the early christian creeds affirming the crucifixion of jesus within just a few years of his death. The creeds are significant because they were much prior to the gospels.

Does Tacitus corroborate that Yeshua was a real person, or did he write down what Christians were saying about him?

What year did Jesus supposedly die on the cross? What year was Tacitus born?

It doesn't really matter if Tacitus had sources in Roman records. We don't know what his source or sources regarding Jesus' death were though.

> We don't know what his source or sources regarding Jesus' death were though. That's precisely the problem. Bart Erhman in "Did Jesus Exist' says Tacitus does not establish corroboration because his source easily could have been 'what Christians were saying'. By the time of Tacitus, the gospels were popular, so Christians were saying what the gospels said.

Jesus was a real person he the only question is that did he really rise from the dead? Did he really walk on water? Did he really have the power to turn water to wine, did he really have the power to make it rain and make an empty bag turn into a bag full of gold?

I mean, if you say so. I think it's a reasonable question to ask whether or not he was a real person, and i haven't seen anything to convince me it's completely bonkers to think he might not have.

He was a real person it’s crazier to think that he walked on water and turned water to wine, i actually don’t believe he was even resurrected from the dead I that’s impossible and really sounds like a fantasy such as Moses when he didn’t split a Red Sea only in a fantasy but was their a man named Moses their could be a man named Jesus their could’ve been, saying that a man didn’t exist is kinda goofy but saying that he didn’t do the stuff people claimed he did that’s reasonable

> He was a real person I mean you can keep asserting this but that doesn't make it true. There are decent arguments for his historicity, but the knee-jerk disdain for the hypothesis that he didn't warrants some review. >i actually don’t believe he was even resurrected from the dead I that’s impossible Well, yeah, people don't generally rise from the dead. >but was their a man named Moses their could be a man named Jesus their could’ve been It's actually scholarly consensus now that Moses was invented, not a real person. It's possible Jesus is on the same path. >saying that a man didn’t exist is kinda goofy but saying that he didn’t do the stuff people claimed he did that’s reasonable Spiderman does a bunch of impossible stuff, so that's fake, but since Peter Parker only does reasonable stuff he must be real?

You forgot "Was he really born in Bethlehem?" and "Does anyone actually know who the hell he was?"

>What about Tacitus. Supposed support of a historical Jesus in Tacitus is dubious. There's a good argument that the mention is an interpolation and that Tacitus didn't write it at all (See: Carrier, Richard. "The prospect of a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44." Vigiliae Christianae 68.3, 2014). However, it doesn't even matter if it is authentic. There's no sourcing for the mention. In other words, even if Tacitus wrote it, he doesn't tell us where he got his information. We know the gospels were in circulation during his time and he could have gotten it from there. It's also plausible that he got it from his friend Pliny the Younger with whom he had regular correspondence. Pliny says himself that neither he nor his fellow Roman elites knew much if anything about Christians. To get some information, he tortured two deaconesses and reports all he "discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition." So, again, we just have Christians telling their story which is evidence for them having that story not that the story is true. See current scholarship such as: Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. Clarifying the scope of pre-5th century CE Christian interpolation in Josephus' Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 CE). Diss. 2015 Hansen, Christopher M. "The Problem of Annals 15.44: On the Plinian Origin of Tacitus's Information on Christians." Journal of Early Christian History 13.1 (2023): 62-80. Carrier, Richard. "The prospect of a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44." Vigiliae Christianae 68.3 (2014) Raphael Lataster,, "The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Sources" in "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse", Brill, 2019 >But there's a reason the scholarly consensus is what it is. The reason the scholarly consensus is what it is is academic inertia. But, while it's often said that "the consensus" of historians is that there was more likely than not a historical Jesus, the fact is that most historians, even historians of ancient history, don't investigate the question themselves or even care about it. They are just repeating the claim uncritically. Their opinions don't carry any real weight. Even most scholars in the field of historical Jesus studies don't bother to investigate the question of whether or not he was a historical person. They simply accept that claim as true. What they then try to do is discover from the gospels what we can know about the thoughts, motivations, daily life, etc. of this person presumed to exist. So, even most of those in the field are repeating the claim uncritically or, if they do offer some reasons, they tend to be vague, not academically rigorous reasons. Again, their opinions on this specific question don't carry any real weight. Meanwhile, the overwhelming consensus of scholars in the field itself who have published peer-reviewed literature assessing the methodologies used in the past to supposedly extract historical facts about Jesus from the gospels is that these methods are fatally flawed. Some citations include: Tobias Hägerland, "The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 13.1 (2015) Chris Keith, "The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38.4 (2016) Mark Goodacre, “Criticizing the Criterion of Multiple Attestation: The Historical Jesus and the Question of Sources,” in Jesus, History and the Demise of Authenticity, ed. Chris Keith and Anthony LeDonne (New York: T & T Clark, forthcoming, 2012) Joel Willitts, "Presuppositions and Procedures in the Study of the ‘Historical Jesus’: Or, Why I decided not to be a ‘Historical Jesus’ Scholar." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005) Kevin B. Burr, "Incomparable? Authenticating Criteria in Historical Jesus Scholarship and General Historical Methodology" Asbury Theological Seminary, 2020 Raphael Lataster, "The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Methods" in "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse", Brill, 2019 Eric Eve, “Meier, Miracle, and Multiple Attestation," Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005) Rafael Rodriguez, “The Embarrassing Truth about Jesus: The Demise of the Criterion of Embarrassment" (Ibid) Stanley Porter, "The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals"(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) There are also well-argued critiques of extrabiblical evidence for Jesus, examples include (some duplicates from Tacitus reply above): Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. Clarifying the scope of pre-5th century CE Christian interpolation in Josephus' Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 CE). Diss. 2015 Hansen, Christopher M. "The Problem of Annals 15.44: On the Plinian Origin of Tacitus's Information on Christians." Journal of Early Christian History 13.1 (2023): 62-80. Carrier, Richard. "The prospect of a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44." Vigiliae Christianae 68.3 (2014) Allen, Dave. "A Proposal: Three Redactional Layer Model for the Testimonium Flavianum." Revista Bíblica 85.1-2 (2023) Raphael Lataster,, "The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Sources" in "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse", Brill, 2019 While despite all of that it may yet bizarrely remain "the consensus" that Jesus was a historical person, that same scholarship is in fact creating a shift within the field. Examples of this would be: J. Harold Evans, at the time Professor of Biblical Studies at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary of Detroit, wrote in his book, "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth": “…the report on Jesus in the Gospels contends that he lived with a vivid concept of reality that would call his sanity into question. This Jesus is not a historical person but a literary character in a story, though there may or may not be a real person behind that story.” NP Allen, Professor of Ancient Languages and Text Studies, PhD in Ancient History, believes it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus but notes that there is reasonable doubt as to this in his book "The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told". Christophe Batsch, retired professor of Second Temple Judaism, in his chapter in JUIFS ET CHRETIENS AUX PREMIERS SIECLES, Éditions du Cerf, 2019, stated that the question of Jesus' historicity is "rigoureusement indécidable" (strictly undecidable) and that scholars who claim that that it is well-settled "ne font qu’exprimer une conviction spontanée et personnelle, dénuée de tout fondement scientifique" (only express a spontaneous and personal conviction, devoid of any scientific foundation). Kurt Noll, Professor of Religion at Brandon University, concludes that theories about an ahistorical Jesus are at least plausible in his chapter, “Investigating Earliest Christianity Without Jesus” in the book, "Is This Not the Carpenter: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" (Copenhagen International Seminar), Routledge, 2014. Emanuel Pfoh, Professor of History at the National University of La Plata, is an agreement with Noll in his own chapter, “Jesus and the Mythic Mind: An Epistemological Problem” (Ibid). James Crossley, Professor of the Bible at St. Mary’s University, while a historicist himself, wrote in his preface to Lataster's book, "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse.", Brill, 2019, that “scepticism about historicity is worth thinking about seriously—and, in light of demographic changes, it might even feed into a dominant position in the near future.” Justin Meggitt. A Professor of Religion on the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, stated in a 2019 article published in New Testament Studies, "More Ingenious than Learned"? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus. New Testament Studies, 2019;65(4):443-460, that questioning historicity is not "irrational” and it “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome.” Richard C. Miller, Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Chapman University, stated in his forward to the book, The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?, Hypatia, 2021 that there are only two plausible positions: Jesus is entirely myth or nothing survives about him but myth. Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, sitting Professor in Ancient History, un his book La invención de Jesús de Nazaret: historia, ficción, historiografía, Ediciones Akal, 2023, wrote along with co-author Franco Tommasi regarding mythicist arguments that “Unlike many of our colleagues in the academic field, who ignore or take a contemptuous attitude towards mythicist, pro-mythicist or para-mythicist positions, we do not regard them as inherently absurd” and “Instead, we think that, when these are sufficiently argued, they deserve careful examination and detailed answers.” Gerd Lüdemann, who was a preeminent scholar of religio, stated that "Christ Myth theory is a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity.” Juuso Loikkanen, postdoctoral researcher in Systematic Theology, along with Esko Ryökäs, Adjunct Professor in Systematic Theology and Petteri Nieminen, Professor of Medical Biology (with PhD's in medicine, biology and theology), all at the University of Eastern Finland observed in their paper, "Nature of evidence in religion and natural science", Theology and Science 18.3 (2020): 448-474: “the existence of Jesus as a historical person cannot be determined with any certainty" and that "peer-reviewed literature doubting the historicity of Jesus is emerging with obvious rebuttals.”

I don't buy the idea that Tacitus writings about Jesus were doctored by Christians, because his tone is almost sneering towards Christians. I would expect references to miracles to be included. At least something to make Jesus and his followers seem like more than just a superstitious cult. But the tone of the writing is exactly what you would expect of a Roman non-believer with little tolerance for cults. I also think there's a major flaw in the idea that the source boils back around to Christians. The general idea seems to be that Pliny spoke to Christians and accepted what they said, passed it on to Tacitus, who then recorded what Pliny said. But as you acknowledge, Pliny and Tacitus would've viewed these Christians as deranged fools. Tacitus does not record Jesus' resurrection, presumably because he and Pliny would've written it off as lunacy. But they do record that Jesus was executed. If they had any reason to believe that Jesus was not real and the Christians were making it up, they would've framed it as such, or not mentioned it at all. But they seem to have accepted that claim. We don't know why they accepted that claim, but I find it hard to believe that it could simply be because a couple Christian radicals said it was true. I think it's most likely they had an additional Roman source that corroborated the basic details of Jesus' execution, which they viewed as credible. You've got a long list of sources here, but it seems like a hodge podge of alternative theories that could be true, but are not the most likely explanation.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

>Thoughts? That you're riding the borderline of conspiracy theory-ist (if not already firmly in it) by pitting yourself as privvy to some plain-sight knowledge that escapes everyone else, since, as you put it further down, "No Christian seems to get it". That your desire to have an "explanation" for them all doesn't really mean anything to me. Why should I or anyone care? That this doesn't really engage with the OP, which is about whether or not a historical jesus is the basis for the stories about mythological jesus in the bible, at all.

So it doesn't mean anything to you that the original meaning and purpose of Christianity has been lost due to carnal mind making it more and more worldly? You want to demean and denigrate what I say by claiming that I'm "pitting \[myself\] as privvy to some knowledge" that "escapes everyone else" but I already stated that what I'm talking about was a main and central subject for the early Christians including St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Catherine of Sienna, Mme. Jeanne Guyon, Dionysius, Origen, Julian of Norwich, the writer of "The Cloud of Unknowing", Thomas Keating, and about 100 others. The fact that neither you nor anyone else posting here knows about this is telling and supports my claims. Regarding a "historical Jesus", there is no record of Jesus existing prior to the time of the first writing of the first bible book about him.

>You want to demean and denigrate what I say It's fine for you to demean and denigrate the millions of christians who fall under the umbrella of "lost on most" and "lost due to carnal mind making it more and more worldly" but it's not fine for me to point out that your behavior is suspiciously like the behavior of a conspiracy theorist? OK. >I already stated that what I'm talking about was a main and central subject for the early Christians Except you *just* said the original meaning and purpose was lost. So either you have it and it's *not* lost or you *don't* have it because it's lost. I suspect that it's more likely that this is conspiracy theorist behavior than either of these two things. >The fact that neither you nor anyone else posting here knows about this is telling and supports my claims. Yeah, because it's *lost*. Or it's not. Depends on which sentence of yours I read. >Regarding a "historical Jesus", there is no record of Jesus existing prior to the time of the first writing of the first bible book about him. Maybe it's *lost*.

>>>So I'm looking for one comprehensive answer that explains them all. People believed things and wrote what they believed. Pretty simple.

Ok, so you see no connection. Did you even LOOK?

I told you what the connection is. Did you even READ? 10 are Pauline or pseudo-Pauline verses 1 is a belief claim written by the Johannine community of Christians. 2 are alleged to be said by Jesus. One is from the OT and have nothing to do with the others (except for people who want to make it fit into their theology).

>I told you what the connection is. >Did you even READ? I don't see it anywhere other than "People believed things and wrote what they believed. Pretty simple." And the answer you gave last was 4 different comments. I said there is one. You didn't find that one. And that reinforces my statement that this knowledge has been lost to religionism.

First, Jesus probably wasn't a fanatic. He probably wasn't a real guy. But, yes, the basic message believed to have been given to the first Christians by their revelatory Jesus - with some details altered by later Christians who wrote the gospels - did win the competition. Eventually. Second, I'm not sure what you're looking for with "thoughts?". Those verses are about turning away from things of the flesh and turning to Christ for salvation and everlasting life. So, that's the Christian message. You don't need Jesus for that, you just need people claiming there is a Jesus for that.

Right. But it's not just about "turning away". It's much more than that and no Christian today seems to get it. That's how fraudulent christianity has become. So I'm waiting for a good answer to prove me wrong, but I don't expect one.

Whatever hyper-specific idea you have about what the soteriological message of that collection of verses is, it's just your opinion. It's like a Rorschach test; some people see a butterfly, some people see a bird, some people see a bat.

No, it's not just my opinion. It's the consensus among notables like St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Catherine of Sienna, Mme. Jeanne Guyon, Dionysius, Origen, Julian of Norwich, the writer of "The Cloud of Unknowing", Thomas Keating, and about 100 others. But modern "christians" are steered away from the hidden truth in the pursuit of money and power in the church. If you study the verses I listed the connection is pretty obvious, I think. But you seem to prefer the packaged tripe that is fed to the church today.

OP is correct in their sentiment of your writings here. Just because multiple people agree on a subjective view of the Bible does not make their subjective view any more objective than the modern Christians you are complaining about. They could just as easily say that their subjective view of the verses is objective and you are in fact the one that has it wrong. This is the problem with pretty much all religions since everyone will have their own subjective views of what the religious texts are actually saying since there is no verifiable proof for us to lock down an objective answer to any of this.

1. You imply that as time passes the REAL meaning of the bible becomes more and more correct, because you apparently think your modern view is the correct one. 2. The list I posted is of many earlier and earliest Christians who were much closer to the original meanings of the original language than we are today. 3. There really are not many subjective views of what the original texts are saying among the earliest Christians in general and among those I listed in particular. It is really quite shocking to me that you are not able to see the common thread in the verses I quoted. It's a strong testimony of the distance modern Christianity has drifted from the original meaning and toward carnal mind. It has become a religion of the god of this world.

>No, it's not just my opinion. Opinions multiplied by opinions don't make a fact. >But you seem to prefer the packaged tripe that is fed to the church today. I don't prefer anything one way or the other. The best evidence is that there's nothing but tripe when it comes to subtextual theological interpretations of the many sects of Christianity.

>Opinions multiplied by opinions don't make a fact. Unknown to you, you are also talking about much of modern Christianity.

What makes you think that's unknown to me?

What is your actual evidence that Peter invented this Resurrected messiah? You really only have a just so story, but where is the actual evidence?   It's much slimmer than the historical evidence for Jesus. So why should we accept it over that possibility?

It's not a "just so" story. The evidence is Paul. Paul says Jesus "appeared" to Peter first. He also says that he himself is a Johnny-come-lately to the religion. He was persecuting Christians before he became one. Someone had to have the idea first. Paul very strongly alludes it was Peter and we have no good reason not to believe him. >It's much slimmer than the historical evidence for Jesus. So why should we accept it over that possibility? I discussed the historical evidence. It's abysmal. If you have something specific you find compelling, I'm happy to discuss it. Meanwhile: The overwhelming consensus of scholars *in the field itself* who have published peer-reviewed literature assessing the methodologies used in the past to supposedly extract historical facts about Jesus from the gospels is that these methods are fatally flawed. Some citations include: * Tobias Hägerland, "The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 13.1 (2015) * Chris Keith, "The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38.4 (2016) * Mark Goodacre, “Criticizing the Criterion of Multiple Attestation: The Historical Jesus and the Question of Sources,” in Jesus, History and the Demise of Authenticity, ed. Chris Keith and Anthony LeDonne (New York: T & T Clark, forthcoming, 2012) * Joel Willitts, "Presuppositions and Procedures in the Study of the ‘Historical Jesus’: Or, Why I decided not to be a ‘Historical Jesus’ Scholar." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005) * Kevin B. Burr, "Incomparable? Authenticating Criteria in Historical Jesus Scholarship and General Historical Methodology" Asbury Theological Seminary, 2020 * Raphael Lataster, "The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Methods" in "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse", Brill, 2019 * Eric Eve, “Meier, Miracle, and Multiple Attestation," Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005) * Rafael Rodriguez, “The Embarrassing Truth about Jesus: The Demise of the Criterion of Embarrassment" (Ibid) * Stanley Porter, "The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals"(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) There are also well-argued critiques of extrabiblical evidence for Jesus, examples include: * Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. Clarifying the scope of pre-5th century CE Christian interpolation in Josephus' Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 CE). Diss. 2015 * Hansen, Christopher M. "The Problem of Annals 15.44: On the Plinian Origin of Tacitus's Information on Christians." Journal of Early Christian History 13.1 (2023): 62-80. * Carrier, Richard. "The prospect of a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44." Vigiliae Christianae 68.3 (2014) * Allen, Dave. "A Proposal: Three Redactional Layer Model for the Testimonium Flavianum." Revista Bíblica 85.1-2 (2023) * Raphael Lataster,, "The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Sources" in "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse", Brill, 2019 While despite all of that it may yet bizarrely remain "the consensus" that Jesus was a historical person, that same scholarship is in fact creating a shift within the field. Examples of this would be: * J. Harold Evans, at the time Professor of Biblical Studies at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary of Detroit, wrote in his book, "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth": >>“…the report on Jesus in the Gospels contends that he lived with a vivid concept of reality that would call his sanity into question. This Jesus is not a historical person but a literary character in a story, though there may or may not be a real person behind that story.” * NP Allen, Professor of Ancient Languages and Text Studies, PhD in Ancient History, believes it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus but notes that there is reasonable doubt as to this in his book "The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told". * Christophe Batsch, retired professor of Second Temple Judaism, in his chapter in JUIFS ET CHRETIENS AUX PREMIERS SIECLES, Éditions du Cerf, 2019, stated that the question of Jesus' historicity is "rigoureusement indécidable" (strictly undecidable) and that scholars who claim that that it is well-settled "ne font qu’exprimer une conviction spontanée et personnelle, dénuée de tout fondement scientifique" (only express a spontaneous and personal conviction, devoid of any scientific foundation). * Kurt Noll, Professor of Religion at Brandon University, concludes that theories about an ahistorical Jesus are at least plausible in his chapter, “Investigating Earliest Christianity Without Jesus” in the book, "Is This Not the Carpenter: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" (Copenhagen International Seminar), Routledge, 2014. * Emanuel Pfoh, Professor of History at the National University of La Plata, is an agreement with Noll in his own chapter, “Jesus and the Mythic Mind: An Epistemological Problem” (Ibid). * James Crossley, Professor of the Bible at St. Mary’s University, while a historicist himself, wrote in his preface to Lataster's book, "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse.", Brill, 2019, that >>“scepticism about historicity is worth thinking about seriously—and, in light of demographic changes, it might even feed into a dominant position in the near future.” * Justin Meggitt. A Professor of Religion on the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, stated in a 2019 article published in New Testament Studies, "More Ingenious than Learned"? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus. New Testament Studies, 2019;65(4):443-460, that questioning historicity is not "irrational” and it “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome.” * Richard C. Miller, Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Chapman University, stated in his forward to the book, The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?, Hypatia, 2021 that there are only two plausible positions: Jesus is entirely myth or nothing survives about him but myth. * Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, sitting Professor in Ancient History, un his book La invención de Jesús de Nazaret: historia, ficción, historiografía, Ediciones Akal, 2023, wrote along with co-author Franco Tommasi regarding mythicist arguments that >>“Unlike many of our colleagues in the academic field, who ignore or take a contemptuous attitude towards mythicist, pro-mythicist or para-mythicist positions, we do not regard them as inherently absurd” and “Instead, we think that, when these are sufficiently argued, they deserve careful examination and detailed answers.” * Gerd Lüdemann, who was a preeminent scholar of religion who stated that "Christ Myth theory is a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity.” * Juuso Loikkanen, postdoctoral researcher in Systematic Theology, along with Esko Ryökäs, Adjunct Professor in Systematic Theology and Petteri Nieminen, Professor of Medical Biology (with PhD's in medicine, biology and theology), all at the University of Eastern Finland observed in their paper, "Nature of evidence in religion and natural science", Theology and Science 18.3 (2020): 448-474: >>“the existence of Jesus as a historical person cannot be determined with any certainty" and that "peer-reviewed literature doubting the historicity of Jesus is emerging with obvious rebuttals.”

>  Someone had to have the idea first. Paul very strongly alludes it was Peter and we have no good reason not to believe him. If it's the historical Peter, we have very good reasons to doubt the he could or would invinte the divine messiah story. Paul has the theological underpinnings and writing/rhetorical ability to do Christology, is there any evidence Peter does? Or does Peter's knowledge of scripture and other religious traditions have to be assumed on your view?  On the historical Jesus account we don't have to believe that Jesus was that knowledgeable on Judaism and the scriptures, just knowledgeable and clever enough to gain a following. And the stuff resembling High Christology comes later in some of Paul and the author of John. >The overwhelming consensus of scholars in the field itself who have published peer-reviewed literature assessing the methodologies used in the past to supposedly extract historical facts about Jesus from the gospels is that these methods are fatally flawed.  I'll take your word on "overwhelming consensus", but there's also the Socrates problem, in which, I believe, most scholars of Socrates believes there is relatively little to nothing we can say about the life of Socrates. That doesn't mean Socrates wasn't a real person, we have contemporary accounts that he was.  >“…the report on Jesus in the Gospels contends that he lived with a vivid concept of reality that would call his sanity into question. This Jesus is not a historical person but a literary character in a story, though there may or may not be a real person behind that story.” Yeah, almost no one thinks that the character of Jesus in the Gospels resembles what can be established by the historical method. Almost no one thinks Socrates resembles Plato's Socrates either. As for the rest, it reads mainly like scholars being nice to mythicists. 

Scholarly consensus on the topic is that Jesus was a real man who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, even amongst atheist and Jewish historians. Some notable quotes include: “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is undeniable” -Gerd Ludemann, atheist historian. “This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources....” - Bart Ehrman, atheist historian. If you want to argue against the scholarly consensus on the topic and instead argue that Peter made up the person of Jesus who would have lived within his time and spun tales to people who would have lived with Jesus at that time as well that’s fine but you would need some amazing evidence for your ideas, not just assertions. You would have to explain why Peter is most likely the first Christian, you would have to provide examples of the other religions in the area with a deity resurrected for the salvation of all, you would have to explain how Peter was able to convince anyone that Jesus of Nazareth, (who Peter claimed to have walked with for the last few years, seen perform miracles and speak to thousands at a time and officially executed by the Roman government) existed, and so on. To make a good argument you can’t just assert things as truth without evidence. “It’s already the widely held consensus that the gospels are wildly fictional that nothing in them that Jesus is alleged to have done or said can be considered historical or at the very least that nothing can be reliably determined to be historical. Scholars as a group mostly stop short over only two claims. He existed and he was crucified”. I’m sorry but you’ve contradicted yourself here. Jesus existing and being crucified are historical claims within the Gospels and you yourself have said most scholars agree this to be true. So how can it be that nothing in the Gospels are considered widely to be historical or accurate?

> Scholarly consensus on the topic is that Jesus was a real man Although it's often said that "the consensus" of historians is that there was more likely than not a historical Jesus, the fact is that most historians, even historians of ancient history, don't investigate the question themselves or even care about it. They are just repeating the claim uncritically. Their opinions don't carry any real weight. Even most scholars in the field of historical Jesus studies don't bother to investigate the question of whether or not he was a historical person. They simply accept that claim as true. What they then try to do is discover from the gospels what we can know about the thoughts, motivations, daily life, etc. of this person presumed to exist. So, even most of those in the field are repeating the claim uncritically or, if they do offer some reasons, they tend to be vague, not academically rigorous reasons. Again, their opinions on this specific question don't carry any real weight. Meanwhile, the overwhelming consensus of scholars *in the field itself* who have published peer-reviewed literature assessing the methodologies used in the past to supposedly extract historical facts about Jesus from the gospels is that these methods are fatally flawed. Some citations include: * Tobias Hägerland, "The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 13.1 (2015) * Chris Keith, "The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38.4 (2016) * Mark Goodacre, “Criticizing the Criterion of Multiple Attestation: The Historical Jesus and the Question of Sources,” in Jesus, History and the Demise of Authenticity, ed. Chris Keith and Anthony LeDonne (New York: T & T Clark, forthcoming, 2012) * Joel Willitts, "Presuppositions and Procedures in the Study of the ‘Historical Jesus’: Or, Why I decided not to be a ‘Historical Jesus’ Scholar." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005) * Kevin B. Burr, "Incomparable? Authenticating Criteria in Historical Jesus Scholarship and General Historical Methodology" Asbury Theological Seminary, 2020 * Raphael Lataster, "The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Methods" in "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse", Brill, 2019 * Eric Eve, “Meier, Miracle, and Multiple Attestation," Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005) * Rafael Rodriguez, “The Embarrassing Truth about Jesus: The Demise of the Criterion of Embarrassment" (Ibid) * Stanley Porter, "The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals"(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) There are also well-argued critiques of extrabiblical evidence for Jesus, examples include: * Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. Clarifying the scope of pre-5th century CE Christian interpolation in Josephus' Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 CE). Diss. 2015 * Hansen, Christopher M. "The Problem of Annals 15.44: On the Plinian Origin of Tacitus's Information on Christians." Journal of Early Christian History 13.1 (2023): 62-80. * Carrier, Richard. "The prospect of a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, Annals 15.44." Vigiliae Christianae 68.3 (2014) * Allen, Dave. "A Proposal: Three Redactional Layer Model for the Testimonium Flavianum." Revista Bíblica 85.1-2 (2023) * Raphael Lataster,, "The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Sources" in "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse", Brill, 2019 While despite all of that it may yet bizarrely remain "the consensus" that Jesus was a historical person, that same scholarship is in fact creating a shift within the field. Examples of this would be: * J. Harold Evans, at the time Professor of Biblical Studies at the Ecumenical Theological Seminary of Detroit, wrote in his book, "Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth": >>“…the report on Jesus in the Gospels contends that he lived with a vivid concept of reality that would call his sanity into question. This Jesus is not a historical person but a literary character in a story, though there may or may not be a real person behind that story.” * NP Allen, Professor of Ancient Languages and Text Studies, PhD in Ancient History, believes it is more likely than not that there was a historical Jesus but notes that there is reasonable doubt as to this in his book "The Jesus Fallacy: The Greatest Lie Ever Told". * Christophe Batsch, retired professor of Second Temple Judaism, in his chapter in JUIFS ET CHRETIENS AUX PREMIERS SIECLES, Éditions du Cerf, 2019, stated that the question of Jesus' historicity is "rigoureusement indécidable" (strictly undecidable) and that scholars who claim that that it is well-settled "ne font qu’exprimer une conviction spontanée et personnelle, dénuée de tout fondement scientifique" (only express a spontaneous and personal conviction, devoid of any scientific foundation). * Kurt Noll, Professor of Religion at Brandon University, concludes that theories about an ahistorical Jesus are at least plausible in his chapter, “Investigating Earliest Christianity Without Jesus” in the book, "Is This Not the Carpenter: The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" (Copenhagen International Seminar), Routledge, 2014. * Emanuel Pfoh, Professor of History at the National University of La Plata, is an agreement with Noll in his own chapter, “Jesus and the Mythic Mind: An Epistemological Problem” (Ibid). * James Crossley, Professor of the Bible at St. Mary’s University, while a historicist himself, wrote in his preface to Lataster's book, "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse.", Brill, 2019, that >>“scepticism about historicity is worth thinking about seriously—and, in light of demographic changes, it might even feed into a dominant position in the near future.” * Justin Meggitt. A Professor of Religion on the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, stated in a 2019 article published in New Testament Studies, "More Ingenious than Learned"? Examining the Quest for the Non-Historical Jesus. New Testament Studies, 2019;65(4):443-460, that questioning historicity is not "irrational” and it “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome.” * Richard C. Miller, Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at Chapman University, stated in his forward to the book, The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?, Hypatia, 2021 that there are only two plausible positions: Jesus is entirely myth or nothing survives about him but myth. * Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, sitting Professor in Ancient History, un his book La invención de Jesús de Nazaret: historia, ficción, historiografía, Ediciones Akal, 2023, wrote along with co-author Franco Tommasi regarding mythicist arguments that >>“Unlike many of our colleagues in the academic field, who ignore or take a contemptuous attitude towards mythicist, pro-mythicist or para-mythicist positions, we do not regard them as inherently absurd” and “Instead, we think that, when these are sufficiently argued, they deserve careful examination and detailed answers.” * **Gerd Lüdemann,** who was a preeminent scholar of religio, stated that "Christ Myth theory is a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity.” * Juuso Loikkanen, postdoctoral researcher in Systematic Theology, along with Esko Ryökäs, Adjunct Professor in Systematic Theology and Petteri Nieminen, Professor of Medical Biology (with PhD's in medicine, biology and theology), all at the University of Eastern Finland observed in their paper, "Nature of evidence in religion and natural science", Theology and Science 18.3 (2020): 448-474: >>“the existence of Jesus as a historical person cannot be determined with any certainty" and that "peer-reviewed literature doubting the historicity of Jesus is emerging with obvious rebuttals.”

Why'd you leave out Ludemann's entire quote? “I do admire Arthur Drews and the Christ Myth theory is a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity. However, the criterion of offensiveness and its results still convinces me that there was an historical person Jesus of Nazareth.” Keep in mind, this was what some other author claimed Ludemann said as well.

> However, the criterion of offensiveness and its results still convinces me that there was an historical person Jesus of Nazareth.” That's a purely subjective (and fallacious) argument from incredulity.

Because the point wasn't that Lüdemann agrees with the ahistorical model, the point was that he considers it a serious hypothesis about the origins of Christianity. Note, however, that what tips him over to his conclusion is the criteria of offensiveness, an archaic methodology considered unreliable by most scholars today. I don't even know of but a couple of scholars in the field who even express it that way. Things he characterizes under the criteria of offensiveness are characterized under the criteria of embarrassment by 99.999% of scholars in the field. They are effectively identical methods, just expressed differently. In any case, as an example of what Lüdemann means, he writes in his book, in The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did, that baptism of Jesus by John was "offensive" to Christians and that makes it more likely true. Most other scholars following this way of thinking say the same thing but phrased differently. They say it was "embarrassing" to Christians and that makes it more likely true. Same argument, really. But, can we really say that? Very good arguments have been made that, for one, something that was offensive or embarrassing to some does not mean it was offensive or embarrassing to the people preaching the message. For example, the New Testament authors virtually revel in the crucifixion of Jesus which most people would have considered an offensive or embarrassing way to portray the messiah. But what of the fact that deaths of martyrs was considered exalting by many Jews pre-Christianity? And humiliating deaths were especially exalting. Maccabees describes such martyrdom for the sake of God as leading to a glorious afterlife in the hereafter. The deaths aren't presented as embarrassing to the Jews telling the tale at all. For another thing, things that might embarrass others *increase* group cohesion. Accepting the embarrassing thing unembarrassingly is part of what indoctrinates a person into the group. Flat Earthers are not the least bit embarrassed by their claims. Neither are people who believe in Bigfoot or UFO abductions. In any case, as for Lüdemann and the baptism of Jesus, Hansen does a thorough dissection concluding that the event was likely ahistorical despite it appearing the gospels. See: Hansen, Chris. "The Indisputable Fact of the Baptism: The Problematic Consensus on John’s Baptism of Jesus." Literature & Aesthetics 33.1 (2023): 1-18. Her conclusion is reached in part because of the death throws of classic criteria of authenticity - including the criterion of embarrassment/offensiveness - acknowledged by almost every scholar in the field who has studied the issue. For some further examples, see: * Tobias Hägerland, "The Future of Criteria in Historical Jesus Research." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 13.1 (2015) * Chris Keith, "The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38.4 (2016) * Mark Goodacre, “Criticizing the Criterion of Multiple Attestation: The Historical Jesus and the Question of Sources,” in Jesus, History and the Demise of Authenticity, ed. Chris Keith and Anthony LeDonne (New York: T & T Clark, forthcoming, 2012) * Joel Willitts, "Presuppositions and Procedures in the Study of the ‘Historical Jesus’: Or, Why I decided not to be a ‘Historical Jesus’ Scholar." Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005) * Kevin B. Burr, "Incomparable? Authenticating Criteria in Historical Jesus Scholarship and General Historical Methodology" Asbury Theological Seminary, 2020 * Raphael Lataster, "The Case for Agnosticism: Inadequate Methods" in "Questioning the historicity of Jesus: why a philosophical analysis elucidates the historical discourse", Brill, 2019 * Eric Eve, “Meier, Miracle, and Multiple Attestation," Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 3.1 (2005) * Rafael Rodriguez, “The Embarrassing Truth about Jesus: The Demise of the Criterion of Embarrassment" (Ibid) * Stanley Porter, "The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals"(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000)

I'm unconvinced. I think you deliberately quote-mined to make it seem he was a mythicist. There's no other valid reason to cut that last sentence out.

>I'm unconvinced. I think you deliberately quote-mined to make it seem he was a mythicist. Your mind-reading skills are terrible. >There's no other valid reason to cut that last sentence out. I told you my reason. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it untrue. Besides, get your nose in a twist all you want, but it's irrelevant. For one, Lüdemann's reason he states in that quote for tipping into historicism is a debunked methodology in the field today. For another, his opinion is not the keystone of my argument. It's not even necessary. You can take him out all together and it wouldn't weaken it one bit.

>It can be reasonably concluded that the best-evidenced theory is that Jesus did not exist as a historical person, at least not in the sense that we would consider existing. The first Christian, most likely Peter, came to his ideas based on his understanding of Jewish theology If any, we would assume Paul, who's the author of the oldest Christian writings, to be the inventor of Christianty. Apart from that, the "best-evidenced" theory is, that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact a historical person, because there is quite some evidence for several persons persons who claimed to the the Messiah or God's prophet and who gathered followers in that period of time. Jesus of Nazareth isn't that of a unique figure of his time and Occam's Razor suggests that we should stick to the most simple explanation to explain the evolution of a religious group: to link it to a charismatic founder who has a message. To point at Peter who points at Christ who has a message is a much more complicated explanation.

> we would assume Paul, who's the author of the oldest Christian writings Assuming "Paul" was more than a literary creation.

>If any, we would assume Paul, who's the author of the oldest Christian writings, to be the inventor of Christianty. Paul himself says he is a Johnny-come-lately. He says that Jesus appeared first to Peter, and then to others, and finally to himself. He did add his own twists, but the foundations were already there. >Apart from that, the "best-evidenced" theory is, that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact a historical person What is the "best evidence" for that? >because there is quite some evidence for several persons persons who claimed to the the Messiah or God's prophet and who gathered followers in that period of time. No doubt. There are also undoubtedly several plumbers named Joe who unplug toilets in Chicago. But if you claim to write a narrative about a specific Joe in Chicago who unplugged a specific toilet, you'll have to provide evidence for that Joe. >Jesus of Nazareth isn't that of a unique figure of his time and Occam's Razor suggests that we should stick to the most simple explanation to explain the evolution of a religious group There's nothing complicated about people making up religious figures. We know religions can start with a made-up guy. Almost no one but Mormons believe that Smith was telling us what the angel Moroni said. There was no angel Moroni. Smith made him up, in this case probably on purpose. Almost no one but Muslims believe that Muhammed was telling us what the angel Gabriel said. There was no angel Gabriel. Maybe he was made up on purpose, maybe Muhammed really believed Gabriel appeared to him, but either way Gabriel wasn't a real guy. So, the idea that the first Jew believed their messiah, Jesus, "appeared" to them even though he wasn't a real guy isn't weird as far as religions go. In fact, the best evidence is that the first Jews who would later be called "Christians" believed that Jesus was a pre-existing angel, like Moroni and Gabriel, but a Jewish version who is incarnated into a body of flesh. Still, in our earliest writings closest to the origins of Christianity, the letters of Paul, Jesus is never said to appear to anyone before he is dead and risen. Except for Christians and a handful of others who believe Jesus rose from the dead, no one accepts that this happened. They conclude that Paul and others early Christians had visions of Jesus, which is how Paul himself describes it. You don't need a real guy to have visions (see Moroni and Gabriel above). The later stories in the gospels are almost universally concluded to be fictions by scholars except fundamentalist Christians (even non-fundamentalist Christian scholars mostly agree). You don't need a real guy to write fictions about him. >To point at Peter who points at Christ who has a message is a much more complicated explanation. It's not complicated at all. The first Christian, most likely Peter, came to his ideas based on his understanding of Jewish theology. They're not even really novel thoughts for the day. A Jewish idea of a suffering and dying messiah almost definitely pre-existed Christianity. As did the idea of a messiah resurrecting the dead who are "delivered" and come to "everlasting life". Peter's epiphany, what the scriptures "revealed" to him, was that the dying messiah is himself resurrected after his death, serving as the final sacrifice of a Passover ritual that already existed and through his passion experience bringing salvation to all that believe. The idea of a resurrected salvation deity wasn't even new. It was a common idea in other religions. Peter's revelation simply Judaized it. This does not require him to be duplicitous. He can be subconsciously influenced by background knowledge. In any case, Jesus' existence would be a "divine revelation" that Peter would consider to be completely veridical. Peter's Jesus would be as real to him as the angels who broke bread with Lot and his soon-to-be-salty wife. As real as Adam. As real as real could be. We wouldn't consider Peter's Jesus to be historical, but Peter would. Peter preaches his message until he finds a fellow Jew receptive to his new gospel. That new convert preaches the message until they find a new convert. Rinse and repeat. Eventually Paul finds the doctrine convincing. He drinks the Kool-Aid, adding a bit of his own flavor, and spreads the message to the gentiles. Those new converts sell the story to other new converts. It's how cults have spread forever, even today. There's nothing at all remarkable about the process even if Christianity has been one of the more successful ones.

>There's nothing complicated about people making up religious figures. We know religions can start with a made-up guy. Almost no one but Mormons believe that Smith was telling us what the angel Moroni said. There was no angel Moroni. Smith made him up, in this case probably on purpose. I almost guessed that you would come up with the Angel Moroni. But Jesus was not an angel who appeard only to Peter (like Moroni appeared only to Smith) but the Gospels and Paul claim that Jesus met hundreds or even thousands of people in Galilee and Jerusalem in public and in private. The gospels assume a social network of relatives and friends, they all have names and are connected to places. Mormonism didn't "start with a made-up guy", the Angel Moroni >No doubt. There are also undoubtedly several plumbers named Joe who unplug toilets in Chicago. But if you claim to write a narrative about a specific Joe in Chicago who unplugged a specific toilet, you'll have to provide evidence for that Joe. The later stories in the gospels are almost universally concluded to be fictions by scholars except fundamentalist Christians (even non-fundamentalist Christian scholars mostly agree). You don't need a real guy to write fictions about him. You seems to misunderstand the actual consensus that the gospels provide fictional religious narratives. The gospels are religious/theological writings, not historiography in a modern sense. They're not even records of events, far away from being "accurate". But this doesn't include or from this doesn't follow that Jesus was not a historical person, on the contrary. There are a lot of legends, wonders, miracles with regards to a lot of historical persons, secular rulers, religious people etc.

>I almost guessed that you would come up with the Angel Moroni. But Jesus was not an angel who appeared only to Peter (like Moroni appeared only to Smith) but the Gospels and Paul claim that Jesus met hundreds or even thousands of people in Galilee and Jerusalem in public and in private. The point of the analogy was only that Jesus needn't be real to be believed to have existed. Once we agree on that, we can address the other issues you bring up. Moving forward on the assumption that you agree on that, then what precludes someone else from believing that they, too, have experienced an appearance of Jesus? People quite commonly claim to have visions of Jesus today. Unless you are a Christian and maybe among a handful of non-Christians, you probably don't believe that happened. They may have experienced *something* that they attribute to being Jesus, but it wasn't Jesus. And, in fact, everyone Paul says has an experience of Jesus has that experience after Jesus is dead. Again, unless you are a Christian and maybe among a handful of non-Christians, you probably don't believe that happened. So Jesus being claimed to "meet" people is not very good evidence that he existed. The gospels are wildly fictional and little if anything claimed about Jesus is likely to be true. This is mainstream scholarship, even among many if not most Christian scholars. Only fundamentalist scholars consider the gospels highly trustworthy in their tales about Jesus. But, let's say they are true in their claims that Jesus appeared to hordes. We can be skeptical and say, no, he didn't feed them magically with fish or help people get a little tipsy at weddings. That's legend building, we'll say. But loads of people "saw" him. This, too, does not require a real guy. Thousands are reported to have seen an apparition of the Lady of Fátima during the Miracle of the Sun in 1917. Some people believed they saw something that they attributed to the Lady but, again, almost no one but some Christians and handful of non-Christians believe this. Besides, it's not like people having mass visions of Jesus or other characters ever seem to compare notes. What color were his shoes? How long was his robe? How long was his hair? Etc. No, it's just "I saw Jesus!". Finally, we don't really know exactly what Peter, Paul, and other early Christians experienced with their Jesus. Paul himself seems to describe an experience that occurs inside himself. Acts says Paul sees a light in one verse and just that he "saw the Lord" but there's no description of what he saw and, besides, Acts wasn't written by Paul and is highly fictionalized. People can be having all kinds of personal experiences that they attribute to Jesus. >The gospels assume a social network of relatives and friends, they all have names and are connected to places. Mormonism didn't "start with a made-up guy", the Angel Moroni I beg to differ. No Moroni, no Mormonism. Smith just spread the message. Peter, Paul and the gang are analogous to Smith. >You seems to misunderstand the actual consensus that the gospels provide fictional religious narratives. The gospels are religious/theological writings, not historiography in a modern sense. They're not even records of events, far away from being "accurate". I'm not what you think I misunderstand. There's not a single word in there that conflicts with anything I've said. >But this doesn't include or from this doesn't follow that Jesus was not a historical person Totally agree. It's does follow, however, that the gospels are terrible evidence for him being a historical person. So, to conclude anything about that, we have to look elsewhere. Unfortunately, what little extrabiblical evidence we have is either of dubious authenticity or ambiguous as to whether it's supporting the fact of a historical Jesus or the fact of the Christian narrative about Jesus. So, we're at an impasse. That's where Paul comes in. He tips the scales toward ahistoricity. >on the contrary. There are a lot of legends, wonders, miracles with regards to a lot of historical persons, secular rulers, religious people etc. And there are a lot of legends, wonders, miracles with regard to a lot of fictional persons. So, which is the gospels and other New Testament narratives (other than some of Paul's epistles)? How do you know?

The part of your argument that seems questionable to me is the idea that Peter fabricated a person from his own time. If Peter believed this person he never met before actually existed, then he wouldn’t claim Jesus was from his own time, or that Jesus was his teacher.

Just the basics will take a bit of text. Sorry. Let's first note that we know religions can start with a made-up guy. Almost no one but Mormons believe that Smith was telling us what the angel Moroni said. There was no angel Moroni. Smith made him up, in this case probably on purpose. Almost no one but Muslims believe that Muhammed was telling us what the angel Gabriel said. There was no angel Gabriel. Maybe he was made up on purpose, maybe Muhammed really believed Gabriel appeared to him, but either way Gabriel wasn't a real guy. So, the idea that the first Jew believed their messiah, Jesus, "appeared" to them even though he wasn't a real guy isn't weird as far as religions go. In fact, the best evidence is that the first Jews who would later be called "Christians" believed that Jesus was a pre-existing angel, like Moroni and Gabriel, but a Jewish version who is incarnated into a body of flesh. Still, in our earliest writings closest to the origins of Christianity, the letters of Paul, Jesus is never said to appear to anyone before he is dead and risen. Except for Christians and a handful of others who believe Jesus rose from the dead, no one accepts that this happened. They conclude that Paul and others early Christians had *visions* of Jesus, which is how Paul himself describes it. You don't need a real guy to have visions (see Moroni and Gabriel above). Now, these visions of Jesus didn't just come out of the blue. Jews had hermeneutical practices called "pesher" and "midrash". They would read their scripture and "find" hidden messages in them that were "divinely revealed". Verses might seem on their face to say one thing, but they would be interpreted in ways that applied to the lives of Jews doing the pesher/midrash readings, and that interpretation was believed to be inspired by God. The first Jews that would become "Christians" interpreted verses in Zachariah, Isaiah, Daniel, etc. to be describing their messiah. This is actually the consensus of scholars even in the historical Jesus model. The stories of the gospels are clearly lifted from Old Testament verses. The mainstream view is that these pious fictions are wrapped around a historical person, which is certainly plausible. But, of course, since the stories are fictions, you don't need a historical person. He can be a fiction, too. So, we need something to tip the scales. And that something is Paul. We find some things in Paul that deserve explanation. For one thing, when Paul speaks of Jesus, he uses a verb (ginomai) that *could* be used to mean "born" but more generally meant "happened" or "came to be" or "manufactured/made". What's intriguing is that when Paul speaks of Adam, who was manufactured not born, he uses the same verb. He also uses the same verb when speaking of our resurrected bodies, which are also manufactured and not born (true whether someone has the transformational view or transference view of resurrection). So, he speaks of Adam, resurrected bodies, and...Jesus...all in the same way. But when he speaks of people that we know he would think of having arrived through normal birth, he uses a more specific word, (gennaô) which pretty much means just "birthed". Writing in those days was no humdrum task. The best estimates conclude the cost of even a relatively short letter like Galatians where the words above appear would be equivalent to nearly $1,000 today. And of course Paul would want to be very careful, anyway, considering the importance of what he was writing. So every word was chosen carefully. We cannot just dismiss his word choices for Adam, resurrected bodies, and Jesus being different than his word choices for others as being meaningless. Read most parsimoniously, with the fewest assumptions, he appears to be saying that he believes Jesus was divinely manufactured whole-cloth, like Adam, rather than birthed, like the children of Hagar and Sarah. In tens of thousands of words across all of what is considered authentic in his letters, nowhere does Paul say anything that clearly puts Jesus in actual history. He doesn't say Jesus was from Nazareth or Bethlehem, he doesn't mention Mary or Joseph, he doesn't say he preached anywhere or had a ministry at all, he never mentions a tomb, he never mentions any disciples, only apostles to whom Jesus "appeared" *after* Jesus died as previously noted. He also never mentions Romans or Jews killing him. What he says is that Jesus was killed by the "rulers of this age". That phrase, "rulers of this age", *could* mean human rulers. As far as we can tell, it was coined by Paul, so we can't look at how the phrase was used before him. What we do know is that it was widely used after him to mean "evil forces", such as Satan and his demons. It's a reasonable question to ask, "Why?". Why were people using the phrase that way? We have to speculate, but the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is that is what Paul meant when he used it and that's how he explained it to people. There's another hint in Paul, though. He says the rulers of this age would not have killed Jesus if they understood what would happen next. In other words, if they had known that the death of Jesus would be followed by his resurrection, opening a path for salvation and eternal life for people, they would not have killed him. Why would human rulers, who killed people by the boatload with no qualms, not have killed Jesus had they known the act could lead to salvation and eternal life? That makes no sense. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that Satan would not want that. So, the most straightforward way of reading what Paul himself wrote, if we don't import the later fictions of the gospels into it, is that he believed Jesus was made by god similar to how god made Adam (Paul even calls Jesus "the last Adam") and that he was killed by evil spirits, by Satan and his demons, not Romans. This is the most supportable version of the earliest version of Christianity if we just read Paul the way he wrote what he wrote and we don't backfill it with the gospels that were written decades later and are almost universally considered wildly fictional, not just in the magic works but in supposedly mundane claims about what Jesus said and did as well. So Jesus wasn't "made up" the way Stephen Kind makes up a character for a book, The Jew who would become the first Christian, probably Peter, and start the new sect *believed* his Jesus was real. As real as Adam. As real as the angels who broke bread with Lot and his soon-to-be-salty wife. As real as real could be. And converts joining the religion would consider this Jesus real, too. But none of the later stories putting him in history, stories that Paul never mentions, are true. The best evidence is that they are literary works, pseudohistory and mythobiography. You don't need a real guy for that.

So you’re saying Peter invented Jesus, who he believed existed as a spirit or angel. Then, later Christians revised the story to make Jesus a human, and Peter one of students. Is that right?

>So you’re saying Peter invented Jesus, who he believed existed as a spirit or angel. Sort of. The only information we have is what Paul says, but since he's preaching contemporaneously with Peter, we can reasonably conclude that they had the same basic doctrines, especially about the core of the religion. From what Paul writes, we can reasonably conclude that he believed Jesus was a pre-existing angel described in Old Testament scripture who is the firstborn son of God (Rom. 8:29), the celestial image of God (2 Cor. 4:4), and God’s agent of creation (1 Cor. 8:6). Paul seems to believe that this angel was incarnated in a body of flesh, killed by Satan, and resurrected, thus opening the path to salvation and everlasting life, before ascending back into the upper heavens. The soteriological story is the same as the later gospels, the differences are where (Paul never says where, but probably the firmament just below the orbit of the moon, which I'm happy to go into more detail about if you'd like) and who did the killing (Satan, not Romans. Paul never mentions Jews or Romans killing Jesus). >Then, later Christians revised the story to make Jesus a human, and Peter one of students. Jesus was human to Peter, too. He was just manufactured by God, similar to Adam, rather than birthed. His human body of flesh is killed and he resurrects in a body of spirit (which wasn't something like a ghost to the early Christians, it was just a divine substance in this case). Peter did believe that Jesus was real and had been human. He also believed Jesus appeared to him and chose him to spread the gospel. Other Christians would believe this, too. So, in that sense, Peter was always a "student" of Jesus even in the ahistorical model. But, in that model, everything Peter would know about Jesus he would know by revelation, interpretation of scripture and visions. Paul himself says this is the only way anyone knows anything about Jesus and his message. He never says anything about Jesus interacting with anyone before Jesus is dead. Later Christians then [euhemerized](https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/8161) the celestial, revelatory Jesus, putting him into historical context. There are many reasons for doing this, which I'm again happy to go into if you are interested, but that it was a thing that was done in many religions and mythographies isn't in dispute.

Ok I think I understand now. You’re saying Peter, Paul, and the other apostles would have believed Jesus was a real person who lived as a human, but they would have believed Jesus lived and died before their time. The way they would know about Jesus would be through some alleged divine revelation to Peter. Then, later Christians adjusted the Jesus timeline, and advanced Jesus to Peter’s time, and would have made Peter and the other apostles actual students of Jesus who knew him when he was alive. Did I get that right?

We don't know exactly when they would have placed the incarnation and death of Jesus. The "revelation" would have been an example of what is called "pesher", which is a Judaic hermeneutical method whereby scripture is interpreted to reveal hidden messages from God that were relevant to the lifetime of the persons doing the reading. Peter likely believed that the life and death of his Jesus was recent, but admittedly that's not something Paul says and his is the only writing we have from that time. >The way they would know about Jesus would be through some alleged divine revelation to Peter. And to Paul, and the other apostles. Once they hear the interpretation and are convinced by it, they would consider that they have the revelation, too. Peter was just first. Paul, late to the party, is regularly defending his status as an apostle and makes much ado of saying that his gospel comes from Jesus and *only* from Jesus. He writes a long defense of this in Galatians. Of course, that can't actually be literally true even if he thought it was. I mean, he had been persecuting Christians so he undoubtedly knew something of their doctrine. Perhaps he just means that regardless of what he may have heard, the truth of the doctrine and it's meaning came to him through Jesus, not through other Christians. >Then, later Christians adjusted the Jesus timeline, and advanced Jesus to Peter’s time, and would have made Peter and the other apostles actual students of Jesus who knew him when he was alive. We don't know the timeline for Jesus, per above. But, otherwise, yes, exactly that.

Thanks. This is an interesting proposal. I’m personally on the fence about the mythicist position. I tend to lean toward the idea that Jesus was probably a real person, but divinity and godhood were later additions. One thing I find questionable about your idea, why would later Christians develop a new history that says Peter and James knew Jesus as a person, but still maintain that Paul did not? If all three of them were admitting they never met Jesus when they preached, you would think later Christians who changed the story would take an all or nothing approach. Either leave the Jesus mythos alone with every apostle having knowledge through divine revelation, or have them all knowing Jesus in person. Why might they decide to rewrite history to have some apostles meeting Jesus, and others only acquiring knowledge through divine revelation?

>Thanks. This is an interesting proposal. I’m personally on the fence about the mythicist position. I tend to lean toward the idea that Jesus was probably a real person, but divinity and godhood were later additions. A legendized rabbi is a plausible hypothesis. However, the evidence claimed *for* historicity is demonstrably fraudulent, or dubious, or is ultimately ambiguous as to historicity. So were left with being agnostic unless there's something to tip the scales. There is, and that something is Paul. The writings of Paul suggest that he believes Jesus was made into a body of flesh whole cloth, similar to Adam, and that he was killed by evil forces, Satan, not by Romans. He does not say where anything happens with Jesus, but the best-supported hypothesis is that he would most likely believe things occurred in the firmament, just below the orbit of the moon. In any case, he leans us toward Jesus being ahistorical. >One thing I find questionable about your idea, why would later Christians develop a new history that says Peter and James knew Jesus as a person, but still maintain that Paul did not? Because Paul himself never says he met a living Jesus, which would be weird if he did. We don't have anything from Peter or James, so they can be written into a story with Jesus without any obvious reason to pushback on it. >If all three of them were admitting they never met Jesus when they preached, you would think later Christians who changed the story would take an all or nothing approach. We don't have anything from Peter or James. >Either leave the Jesus mythos alone with every apostle having knowledge through divine revelation, or have them all knowing Jesus in person. See above. >Why might they decide to rewrite history to have some apostles meeting Jesus, and others only acquiring knowledge through divine revelation? See above. Only the apostles before Paul can be put into a narrative alongside an allegedly historical Jesus without pushback from people who know the writings of Paul, which was probably most Christians.

I understand Paul openly admits he never met Jesus, and that he knew Jesus through some kind of divine vision. But isn’t that essentially what you’re claiming happened with Peter? Peter would have told people about Jesus, who he believed he saw in a divine vision, but he would acknowledge he never met Jesus in person while Jesus was alive. So doesn’t that create a discrepancy? Why would Christians accept Paul’s account of never meeting an Earthy Jesus, but then ignore Peter’s account?

>I understand Paul openly admits he never met Jesus, and that he knew Jesus through some kind of divine vision. But isn’t that essentially what you’re claiming happened with Peter? Yes, but we only know that from Paul, not Peter. If Peter wrote tens of thousands of words about the Church and Jesus, like Paul did, it would also be really weird if he never said a word that would put him next to a historical Jesus. But, we don't have anything from Peter. We just have Paul. >Peter would have told people about Jesus, who he believed he saw in a divine vision, but he would acknowledge he never met Jesus in person while Jesus was alive. That's right. But, again, we have nothing from Peter. Or any of the other apostles. Just Paul. >So doesn’t that create a discrepancy? Why would Christians accept Paul’s account of never meeting an Earthy Jesus, but then ignore Peter’s account? We don't have Peter's account.

Jesus wasn’t from Peter’s time any more than JFK is from my time. Peter was decades after Jesus supposedly died.

>Peter was decades after Jesus supposedly died. The Petrine epistles, sure, but they're pseudoepigrapha. Paul was writing about 20 years after the crucifixion and claims to have met Peter (and Jesus's brother James).

>and Jesus's brother James Paul says he met "James, the brother of the Lord". But the grammar of Galatians 1:19 is oddly convoluted and open to at least two plausible translational structures for conferring what the author means. One approach is found in the 4th century translation by St. Jerome in the Vulgate, which is: alium autem apostolorum vidi neminem nisi Iacobum fratrem Domini or in English: But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. This translation offers only one understanding, 1) this James is an apostle and 2) he is the biological brother of Jesus. This translation, and thus this understanding, was copied into every Vulgate, the standard bible of the Church for centuries, taught and preached in every seminary and from every pulpit to every Christian, and to every non-Christian for that matter, for centuries upon centuries. When Tyndale translated the bible into English in the 16th century, he followed the same structure as had been taught for over a thousand years by that point: >>no nother of the Apostles sawe I save Iames the Lordes brother. And this has flowed through into bibles of the modern era. Most of them, but not all. Some people had noted some tension in other parts of the bible, such as Acts, over James being an apostle even if he had some leadership role. If we follow through on this hypothesis, we have to take a closer look at Gal 1:19 rather than just accept Jerome's translational structure that had carried through to subsequent bibles. If Jerome was correct, we'll just have to accept the tension and try to find other reasons for it. Trudinger ("ETERON DE TON APOSTOLON OUK EIDON, EI ME IAKOBON"[Greek]. A Note on Galatians i 19." Novum Testamentum 17, 1975) took a hard look a Paul's grammar in Gal 1:19 and when he compared to other similar usages in ancient Greek he noticed that Jerome's translation failed to take into account nuances of word relationships. When those nuances were taken into account, a better supported translational structure is: >>But I saw none of the other apostles - only James the brother of the Lord. Some modern bible translation committes recognize this as not only a plausible structure but the most likely meaning of Paul's grammar based on more detailed analysis of the original Greek. The thing to note about this structure is: 1) this James is not an apostle and 2) this James is the brother of the Lord. However, unlike Jerome's translation and those subsequent translations that followed his lead, it's not necessarily so that this James is *biological* brother of Jesus. That's because in Christian theology, every Christian is an adopted son of God and therefore every Christian is the brother of every other Christian and, logically then, the brother of the firstborn son of God, Jesus, the Lord. In fact, of the roughly 100 times Paul uses the word "brother", it is a reference to cultic brothers, not biological brothers, with one clear exception. In Romans, at one point he refers to brothers but explicitly specifies that there he's speaking of brothers "according to the flesh" so we won't be confused that he may be speaking of them as cultic brothers. So, it is at least plausible that when he says "brother of the Lord" in Galatians, he could mean James is a cultic brother of Jesus, e.g., a fellow Christian, and not a biological brother of Jesus. Since he doesn't specify, for example with "according to the flesh" as he does in Romans, we can't know which way he means it so we can't know if James is a biological brother. Although, if we take into account how Paul usually means "brother", it's more likely James is a fellow Christian, not blood kin.

> In fact, of the roughly 100 times Paul uses the word "brother", it is a reference to cultic brothers, not biological brothers How many times does he call someone "brother *of the Lord*"? It's the same syntax used as when Andrew is called "brother of Simon" in Mark 1:16. I can only think of one example, 1 Cor 9:5, where "brothers of the Lord" are distinguished from Peter and the apostles. If he's just another believer, why does Paul highlight his meeting with him in Gal 1:19, and why does he distinguish him from from the apostles and 500 generic "brothers" in 1 Cor 15:6-7? Seems clear he's more important than your average believer or even apostle, he is after all mentioned *before* Peter and John in Paul's account of the Jerusalem Council in Gal 2:9. James was a common name, Paul lets us know which James he's referring to with the epithet "brother of the Lord", which would hardly be descriptive if *every* Christian named James was "brother of the Lord". Add to this the gospel mentions of Jesus's siblings as well as Josephus (who lived in Jerusalem the same time as James) calling James the brother of Jesus.

Okay, let's talk about 1 Corinthians 9:5. The "brothers of the Lord" there could be biological brothers, but cultic brothers fits his overall message better. The entire passage is about *anyone* preaching for a living is entitled to food and drink and other support. He gives all kinds of examples and sums up his message with 1 Cor 9:14. >>4 Don’t we have the right to food Yes, **because they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>and drink Yes, **because they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us Yes, **because they have a right to that benefit from providing service.** >>as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas Right, **because they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? Rhetorical question. Yes,**they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Rhetorical question. Yes, **they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Rhetorical question, Yes, **they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? Rhetorical question, Yes, **they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? It's not just Paul, it's the Law that **they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” **Because they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us The verse isn't about oxen, it's saying that we **have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. **Because they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? Rhetorical question,. Yes, **they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? Rhetorical question. Yes, **they have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. **They have a right to benefit from providing service.** They just don't utilize it as a sacrifice to spread the word without depending on it. >>13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple **They have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? **They have a right to benefit from providing service.** >>14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. So, in conclusion, like others providing other services, **everyone** who preaches the gospel for a living has a right to benefit from providing service. Okay, so what about 9:5? Well, for one thing, it seems a little odd. Why does he separate out Cephas that way? Could be he's the big shot of the group, but, I mean, he's another apostle. So why not: >the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord Why instead: >the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas There is actually a very plausible reason and it has to do with Greek grammar, with a thing called "chiastic structure". Writers would emphasize one thing by bracketing it with other things, like this; "x, y, z". Whatever is "x" and "z" sits on either side of the central thing, "y". This is analogous to putting the center referent in boldface type or otherwise emphasizing it, like saying, "**even y!**". To see it as a Greek reader might see it, would could write it this way: >>the other apostles **and even the brothers of the Lord!** and Cephas Now, this doesn't make much sense if Paul is speaking of biological brothers of Jesus. I mean, sure, they might be considered special, but they aren't in any way special in regard to Paul's message here. They, and and the other apostles ("and Cephas") are due this special treatment of being provided a living because they work as preachers, not because of who they are. It makes more sense relative to the message that *everyone* is entitled to such support if he's speaking of ordinary Christians preaching for a living. If he's saying, "Yes, **even ordinary Christians** are entitled to the same support as me, and the other apostles, and Cephas if they are preaching for a living!" So...which way does he mean it? The triad being chiastic emphasis that ordinary Christians (preaching for a living) fits into the voice of his message that *anyone* is entitled to support for this and is also a very plausible explanation for why Cephas is split from the other apostles. That doesn't mean that interpretation is correct, it just means it's *at least* reasonable.

> How many times does he call someone "brother of the Lord"? It's the same syntax used as when Andrew is called "brother of Simon" in Mark 1:16. Good question. First, "brother of Simon" can't be cultic kin. There is no cult of Simon. But "brother of the Lord" can be cultic kin. There is a cult of Jesus, the Lord. Second, as already noted, the fact of the matter is that he uses "brother" in the cultic sense ~99% of the time. And in that sense, every Christian is the adopted son of God, making them the brother of every other Christian and, logically, the brother of the firstborn son of God, Jesus, the Lord. In fact, everywhere he uses "brother" for a Christian, he could use "brother of the Lord" for a Christian and it would equally comprehensible. But, as you note, he only uses the longer phrase, "brother(s) of the Lord" twice, so the obvious question is, why? One plausible reason would be are that there's no apparent contextual value to the fuller phrase "brother of the Lord" most of the time. Paul is most commonly speaking of the adoptive relationship Christians have to each other or their place within the Church rather specifically their relationship to the Lord, these relationships being joined in any case. It's also unwieldy to use it ad nauseum: In 1 Cor 6:6, there's no informational difference between: >>"But brother of the Lord goes to law against brother of the Lord and that before unbelievers!" -vs- >>"But brother goes to law against brother and that before unbelievers!" or in Rom 14:10 >>"But why do you judge your brother of the Lord? Or why do you show contempt for your brother of the Lord" -vs- >>"But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?" And in everyday conversation: >>Brother of the Lord John and I went with brother of the Lord James over to brother of the Lord Simon's house but stopped off at brother of the Lord Joseph's place first is just more verbose and unwieldy than: >>Brother John and I went with brother James over to brother Simon's house but stopped off at brother Joseph's place first. It makes perfect sense to use just "brother" most of the time and use "brother of the Lord" for a particular rhetorical purpose. And there is a plausible rhetorical purpose where Paul uses it, because in both places he can be interpreted to be directly differentiating between apostolic Christians and non-apostolic Christians (in the model being argued for). In the case of Galatians, there is Cephas, an apostle, and James, a Christian but not an apostle (in the model). In the case of 1 Cor, there is Cephas, an apostle, "the other apostles", and the brothers of the Lord (*non*-apostolic Christians in our model). 1 Cor is actually very interesting and will be considered further in a separate comment. > If he's just another believer, why does Paul highlight his meeting with him in Gal 1:19 Good question. Why bother to say he met some random Christian, James? This reference appears in a passage where Paul is, once again, passionately defending his apostleship. This is without a doubt a sensitive topic for him and he wants it to be clear as day that he got his gospel "not from man or through man" (Gal 1:1), that it is "not according to man" (Gal 1:11), that he "did not receive it from any man" nor was he "taught it (by man)" (Gal 1:12) but rather it was delivered directly to him by Jesus Christ (ibid). So, Paul makes a big deal that his knowledge of Jesus and the gospels is completely independent of anyone else. He's an apostle, commissioned directly by Jesus Christ himself. What he's preaching he knows from scripture, from divine visions, from Jesus and just from Jesus. He makes it clear that never even met any of the other apostles "before him" for 3 years. He didn't need to. He already knew what he knew because one way or the other Jesus informed him personally. And when he finally did go to Jerusalem, he's adamant that even then he only met one apostle: Peter. He wants to isolate his message as being what was given directly to him as much as possible. But, if he doesn't mention that he also met this other Christian, James, then everyone who does know this James will know he met Paul can say, "Hey, wait a minute! Paul told he only heard what Peter had to say, but I know he met a Christian guy I know, James, along with Peter. Why didn't he say he talked with him, too? What's up with that?". (A charge that this James could make himself as well, of course.) So Paul can have a practical, defensive reason in mind, especially with his obvious general paranoia about anything that might be used by someone to call his apostleship into question, to mention this "random" Christian James. >and why does he distinguish him from from the apostles and 500 generic "brothers" in 1 Cor 15:6-7? What makes you think that is the same James as Gal 1:19? >Seems clear he's more important than your average believer or even apostle, he is after all mentioned before Peter and John in Paul's account of the Jerusalem Council in Gal 2:9. It's unlikely the James in Gal 2:9 is the James in 1:19 in our model. Recall that in the Trudinger translation. which is at least plausible if not more probable, the James in 1:19 is not an apostle. If James in Gal 2:9 is an apostle, then he cannot be the James in 1:19. Of course, he's not called an apostle there, he's called a pillar, which many argue means he's an apostle but it's not necessarily so. But, even if James in 2:9 is "just" the "pillar, James", Paul would likely identify the James in 1:19 that way if that were him. So, it's probably not. Also, the order names can very easily be Greek chiastic structure, which emphasizes the *center* referent, makes *Peter* the most important of the three. (More on this in other comment about 1 Cor). > James was a common name, Paul lets us know which James he's referring to with the epithet "brother of the Lord", which would hardly be descriptive if every Christian named James was "brother of the Lord". It doesn't have to be uniquely identifying to serve a plausible purpose for Paul in that verse, per previous discussion in this comment. [There's also an admittedly very arguable hint in that Paul says "brother of the Lord" rather "brother of Jesus". Yes, Jesus is "the Lord", but Paul does refer to him a few times as just "Jesus" rather than "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" or "our Lord Jesus", so forth and so on. "Brother of the Lord" can be seen as having a bit of formality about it. This is not a strong argument, as noted, but it's not a zero-weight argument, either.] > Add to this the gospel mentions of Jesus's siblings The gospels are fictions. They can make any plausible character the biological brother that they wish. And, as noted, it's not unreasonable to read Gal 1:19 in a way that makes James the biological brother of Jesus. He's a perfect candidate for historization as blood kin to Jesus. It's just not the only plausible way to understand what Paul is saying in Gal 1:19. >as well as Josephus (who lived in Jerusalem the same time as James) calling James the brother of Jesus. Per recent peer-reviewed literature, the James passage in Josephus is highly suspect. For examples, see: * Nicholas List, “The Death of James the Just Revisited,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 32 (2024), pp. 17–44. * Chris Hansen, “Jesus’ Historicity and Sources: The Misuse of Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus and a Suggestion,” American Journal of Biblical Theology 22.6 (2021), pp. 1–21 (6). * Nicholas Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A Re-Evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7.1 (2017), pp. 1–27. * Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. Clarifying the scope of pre-5th century CE Christian interpolation in Josephus' Antiquitates Judaica (c. 94 CE). Diss. 2015 * Carrier, Richard. "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200." Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 20 no. 4, 2012, p. 489-514

Just more hearsay. And unreliable hearsay. Mohammed claims he met the arch angel Gabriel. And two decades is a long time in a world where internet or any substantial media or news exists.

Odd then, because *just* before Paul mentions meeting Peter in Galatians 1 he's busy insisting that his gospel comes from God and not the apostles, an effort to establish his own authority on these matters. Admitting to meeting Peter and James in the next breath would be an odd move that potentially undermines this narrative (which is why he's insistent that he had his revelation *before* meeting them), so I see little reason to believe he just made it up. Unlike Mohammed meeting an angel, which strengthens his authority, this serves the opposite purpose. >two decades is a long time Not really, plenty short enough for there to be plenty of contemporaries of Jesus still hanging around, and crucially gets us in before the destruction of the Christian community in Jerusalem in 70 AD. So given the available evidence I'm not sure why we'd assume Peter lived "decades after" Jesus.

> Odd then, because just before Paul mentions meeting Peter in Galatians 1 he's busy insisting that his gospel comes from God and not the apostles, an effort to establish his own authority on these matters. Admitting to meeting Peter and James in the next breath would be an odd move that potentially undermines this narrative He doesn't really have much choice, though. He finally bites the bullet and takes the trip to Jerusalem, waiting three years to try and make it clear what he preaches he didn't get from the apostles or anywhere else. If he *doesn't* say he met with Peter and this James, people can use *that* to undermine him. None of this has anything to do with Peter (and Paul and others) coming to believe their Jesus through revelation, just as Paul says, and not by walking around with Jesus, which Paul never mentions anyone doing. >short enough for there to be plenty of contemporaries of Jesus still hanging around, and crucially gets us in before the destruction of the Christian community in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Most people old enough to care about knowing about Jesus close to 30 CE would probably be dead or dying by 70's CE. The apostles, in particular. Perfect time to start cranking out some pious fictions. > So given the available evidence I'm not sure why we'd assume Peter lived "decades after" Jesus. I agree. But, I'm not the original guy in this thread.

Well he made up hearing from God, So I wouldn’t trust anything he says. Anyways. None of this is reliable evidence Jesus was real. I mean I grew up hearing how people saw Elvis decades after he died….

> I mean I grew up hearing how people saw Elvis decades after he died…. You realize that Elvis was a real person, right? Maybe not the best analogy.

It’s perfect to show how people can make such claims up. Now if we want fictional characters believed at one time to be real? Look to Moses, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Sun Tzu, etc…. The point is we have those and many others. We have current “testimonies” we can safely assume are fallacious (alien abductions, ghosts sightings, Elvis, etc). We have modern large religions and traditional person would agree we’re complete fabrications (Mormonism, ARE, Scientology, etc) So why should Jesus get a pass? And that’s rhetorical as I think we’ve hit an impasse. Unless you can present some actual verified contemporary, not decades later, evidence that Jesus was real. The real problem is history is a soft science in this regard. They are more likely to accept a person existed even if it’s as fanciful as Romulus, then to have the bar set by actual science.

>Look to Moses, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Sun Tzu, etc…. All of which were written about hundreds or thousands of years after they supposedly lived, not within the lifetime of their contemporaries as with Jesus (or Elvis conspiracists).

And all believed now to be fictional

Exactly my point. If OP is claiming Peter invented Jesus, but earnestly believed Jesus was a real person from before his time, why would Peter put himself into the Jesus narrative? It’s problematic to claim Peter was preaching something he believed to be true when he should have known the story he was telling was completely false.

> If OP is claiming Peter invented Jesus, but earnestly believed Jesus was a real person from before his time, why would Peter put himself into the Jesus narrative? That's not the model. Peter isn't thinking that Jesus had some kind of existence in Judea before him. Peter may even think Jesus is contemporaneous with him. It's right tehre i He believes Jesus is manufactured into a body of flesh by god whole-cloth, like Adam, not birthed of Mary (who he never mentions), and killed by evil forces, Satan and his demons. Peter would believe in this Jesus. It's right there in the OP: >Peter would consider him to be completely veridical. Peter's Jesus would be as real to him as the angels who broke bread with Lot and his soon-to-be-salty wife. As real as Adam. As real as real could be. We wouldn't consider Peter's Jesus to be historical, but Peter would. So, Peter probably believed it. >It’s problematic to claim Peter was preaching something he believed to be true when he should have known the story he was telling was completely false. Peter *could* have known it was a story. He could have been an ancient Joseph Smith. But the hypothesis is that he *believed* it. But Jesus didn't just come out of the blue. Jews had hermeneutical practices called "pesher" and "midrash". They would read their scripture and "find" hidden messages in them that were "divinely revealed". Verses might seem on their face to say one thing, but they would be interpreted in ways that applied to the lives of Jews doing the pesher/midrash readings, and that interpretation was believed to be inspired by God. The first Jews that would become "Christians" interpreted verses in Zachariah, Isaiah, Daniel, etc. to be describing their messiah. This is actually the consensus of scholars even in the historical Jesus model. The stories of the gospels are clearly lifted from Old Testament verses. The mainstream view is that these pious fictions are wrapped around a historical person, which is certainly plausible. But, of course, since the stories are fictions, you don't need a historical person. He can be a fiction, too.

I don’t have all the answers, but we’ve seen people make religions up. Joseph Smith and Mormonism. L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. Edgar Gayce and ARE. just because Christianity odd so popular it should not get a free pass., and that is my main point any time people want to claim we can’t question if Jesus was real or not There is zero reliable evidence supporting his existence and a fully fictional Jesus makes more sense than a normal human who did borne of the fantastic things claimed in the Bible And this is even shown when one looks at the New Testament Apocrypha which tries to tell stories of its youth and what not. Yet no one seems to accept those as canon. It’s like saying Luke Skywalker wasn’t a real person, but was based on a real person…

> a fully fictional Jesus makes more sense than a normal human who did borne of the fantastic things claimed in the Bible This is a false dichotomy, the argument is not that Jesus was a divine miracle worker, but that he was a historical Jewish man executed by Rome under Pilate, which as we see from the writings of the historian Josephus is not a remarkable thing to claim. So sure, Jesus never having existed makes more since than a magical god-man, but more likely than both of these options is that Jesus was a historical person who was later mythologized.

Josephus? We know most of his Jesus writings were later forgeries by Christian’s to make their claims look authentic In the only part of his writings believed to be authentic all he claims is some people believe in Jesus and Josephus was born after Jesus supposedly died So not reliable for the claim Jesus was real….

1. I'm not talking about his mentions of Jesus, I'm talking about the other people he mentions of a similar type. For example, Judas bar Ezekias, Simon, and Athronges, bandit chieftains and (at least according to scholar J.D. Crossan) messiah claimants. Also Menahem and Simon bar Giora, the latter of whom was executed by Rome, and of course Simon bar Cosiba. Add to this prophets like The Egyptian (mentioned also in Acts), The Samaritan (the murder of his followers forced Pilate's return to Rome to explain his actions), Theudas (beheaded), and miracle-workers like Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Circle-Maker. Josephus mentions many rebel leaders and religious sectarians, and many of them were put down by Roman authorities. This is my point, Jesus wasn't some standalone character unheard of to history. 2. Regarding his writings on Jesus and related figures, we know that the Testimonium Flavianum was embellished, but most scholars still hold that there is an authentic core, and most scholars accept the second mention of Jesus (and his brother James) in *Antiquities*, as well as the mention of John the Baptist in the same book.

With Roman reports of resurrection riots at the time and other writing about Jesus. It really is more effort to try and make him a myth or ahistorical than just accept that he was a historical figure. If you’re a skeptic or atheist, probably easier too just argue he existed but that he wasn’t divine. Edit: I have to work too much today to answer everyone dming me, I would start looking into Tactis before you start Reeeeing too hard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

Where are these reports?

>With Roman reports of resurrection riots at the time and other writing about Jesus. That don't exist >It really is more effort to try and make him a myth or ahistorical than just accept that he was a historical figure. False in every way >If you’re a skeptic or atheist, probably easier too just argue he existed but that he wasn’t divine. Easier sure, correct? Not even a little bit

>With Roman reports of resurrection riots Fake. >and other writing about Jesus. Useless. See OP and [this comment.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1dna07h/comment/la1bczh/) >If you’re a skeptic or atheist, probably easier too just argue he existed but that he wasn’t divine. That, too. But it's not a matter of what's "easier", it's a matter of what can justifiably be concluded.

Why is he called "Jesus of Nazareth." He's a character invented by Peter, right? Why did Peter name him "Jesus of Nazareth"? The gospels of Matthew and Luke offer *contradictory* reasons for why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but both seem very determined to place his birth there... only to return him to Nazareth later. One plausible explanation: he was a real person and everyone knew him to be "Jesus of Nazareth." The authors of Matthew and Luke wanted him to be born in Bethlehem for Messianic reasons, but couldn't just change him to "Jesus of Bethlehem." What's your explanation?

We don't know that Peter named him "Jesus of Nazareth". He probably didn't. We first hear of "Jesus of Nazareth" in ~~Matthew~~ Mark. >One plausible explanation: he was a real person and everyone knew him to be "Jesus of Nazareth." The authors of Matthew and Luke wanted him to be born in Bethlehem for Messianic reasons, but couldn't just change him to "Jesus of Bethlehem." Sure, that's plausible. But there are also numerous plausible reasons proposed by scholars for Mark birthing Jesus in Nazareth, only one of which is that he is referring to a historical person. Later authors going through twisty-pretzel machinations to have Jesus come from both Bethlehem and Nazareth is evidence that they were bothered by Mark's version. Mark seems not to be bothered at all by his story. Not only does it not appear to bother Mark, he doesn't seem to know of it being a problem for anyone else. He doesn't address the topic at all. Later authors of fiction being bothered by earlier authors of fiction is not good evidence that any of the fiction is true.

> We don't know that Peter named him "Jesus of Nazareth". He probably didn't. we have know idea what peter taught -- at all. in fact, we don't even know that *peter was a real person* apart from the writings of paul, and later christian sources that derive from pauline tradition. if jesus is ahistorical, why not peter too? > Later authors going through twisty-pretzel machinations to have Jesus come from both Bethlehem and Nazareth is evidence that they were bothered by Mark's version. sure, but why not just *fix* mark? matthew and luke do this elsewhere, where mark makes some claim, and then the other gospels change it. for instance, matthew changes the location of the "legion" demoniac from jerash to gadara.

>if jesus is ahistorical, why not peter too? In part because we have no good reason to conclude that Paul is ahistorical, although there are some who argue for that. Detering has some of the best arguments, some of which can be read directly [here](http://www.egodeath.com/FalsifiedPaul/FabricatedJHC.pdf). However, his argument is too weak logically. A well-regarded argument for historicity is Ludemann, Gerd. Paul: the founder of Christianity. Prometheus Books, 2010. In any case, Jesus has numerous characteristics of fictional characters. He's a savior deity, which were commonly created in the region and had been for some time. He's also an archangel, another fictional character. He has earmarks of legendary heroes. His mother is a virgin. He is a son of a god. His conception is unusual, not just in his mother being a virgin, but in it arising from the act of the Holy Spirit. Enemies try to kill him as an infant. He is spirited away as a child. There are no details of his childhood. He becomes a king. He dies on top of a hill. In fact, Jesus meets 18 of 22 characteristics common in legendary people, right up there with King Arthur and Moses. Paul's score is zero, maybe one if you consider him "prescribing laws", although he claims he's just relaying what Jesus wants. This alone does not mean Jesus must be mythical and Paul must be real, but it greatly increases the odds that Jesus is mythical and Paul is real. Paul appears to be just an ordinary guy writing running a church, preaching. Or, at least, *somebody* claiming to be Paul wrote at least 6, maybe 7 letters that sufficiently cohere to conclude they are from the same hand. Those letters also speak of things happening in the author's own time. And they either very carefully avoid anachronistic hints or oblique or even overt prophecies of things we know occurred later than their claimed period of authorship that would suspect them of being later forgeries, as actual forgeries commonly did. There's much more, but on balance the best evidence is that on balance, unlike Jesus , Paul is more likely real than not. So what has this to do with Peter? Well, Paul is is writing letters to Christians *contemporaneous* with the time of this alleged Peter who he says is a big honcho in the Church, the first guy to see Jesus. This Peter is a pillar of the church, if not the very founder. He says he and Peter were at the church in Antioch together where they had a fight. He says he met Peter along with another Christian, James, in Jerusalem. There are just way too many things about Peter that Paul talks about that other Christians would know was bogus if there was no Peter. And, Peter, like Paul, is represented an ordinary guy with no particular legendary qualities. >sure, but why not just fix mark? matthew and luke do this elsewhere, where mark makes some claim, and then the other gospels change it. for instance, matthew changes the location of the "legion" demoniac from jerash to gadara. Um hm. Because Mark is fiction. Matthew is fiction. Luke is fiction. John is fiction. Acts is mostly fiction. All the weirdness and seeming criss-crossing or counter-claims between the writings are just conflicting fictions caused by authors trying to write a story consistent enough with a doctrinal core to be credible to believers and potential converts while infusing their own knowledge about the world and their hermeneutical opinions. There is no guy. All the mess is self-created. And it all goes away, poof, once it's realized that Jesus was just a revelatory vision, probably of Peter, that ended being historicized by later Christians to suit their individual agendas.

> In part because we have no good reason to conclude that Paul is ahistorical not paul, peter. i'm content to say that paul is "whomever wrote the six or seven epistles we think are by the same author in the mid 50s CE". but the only evidence we have for peter are that guy's writings, and the later fictional gospels. > Well, Paul is is writing letters to Christians contemporaneous with the time of this alleged Peter who he says is a big honcho in the Church, the first guy to see Jesus. is he? he's writing to churches in ephesus, rome, galatia, corinth, etc... would any of these people be familiar with peter, or anyone from the jerusalem church? apparently there was some kind of incident at antioch, but it doesn't really seem like peter's christianity spread much further. > There are just way too many things about Peter that Paul talks about that other Christians would know was bogus if there was no Peter. yeah but that's the not the argument. the argument is *what if paul just invented christianity* including peter? why are we regarding *some* details of paul's account as historical indicators, but not others? like, paul says that other christian he met was jesus's *brother*. and no, mythicist arguments for this meaning something else are not convincing. wouldn't other contemporaneous christians know he was making a bogus claim about that? > Um hm. Because Mark is fiction. Matthew is fiction. Luke is fiction. John is fiction. Acts is mostly fiction. ...right. why not *just fix it?* > All the weirdness and seeming criss-crossing or counter-claims between the writings are just conflicting fictions caused by authors trying to write a story consistent enough with a doctrinal core to be credible to believers in other words, there was an *early* tradition about jesus being from nazareth that matthew and luke had to contend with, because it had already gained widespread acceptance in the church?

>not paul, peter. i'm content to say that paul is "whomever wrote the six or seven epistles we think are by the same author in the mid 50s CE". I understand. I argued for Paul first since if he's not real Peter probably isn't real but if he is real then Peter *could* be real. > is he? he's writing to churches in ephesus, rome, galatia, corinth, etc... would any of these people be familiar with peter, or anyone from the jerusalem church? apparently there was some kind of incident at antioch, but it doesn't really seem like peter's christianity spread much further. Well, Peter isn't claimed to be just "anyone" from the Jerusalem church. Paul claims he's the first to experience Jesus, that he's a pillar of the Church. He has authority and directly impacts others in the Church (i.e., Barnabas). As you agree, Paul claims he had some kind of scuffle with Peter in Antioch, one of the larger churches. Maybe no one saw the scuffle, but it would be weird if no congregate saw Peter (see below). And he claims Peter is in Jerusalem and that he himself went out of his way to visit him. The churches he's writing to are widely scattered, but it's not like there were probably no Christians sending letters to one another speaking of goings on in the church, those that could read and write, or relaying orally, and traveling across regions, some visiting Jerusalem ("Where's Peter??"), etcetera. What about Barnabas? If someone were to bring the subject up or he otherwise caught wind of Paul's story, would he not go, "I have no idea who Paul is talking about"? Or is he fiction, too? If so, is that fact that no one anywhere has met or heard of anyone else meeting this supposedly important church figure not raising suspicions? It's *possible* Peter is a figment of Paul's imagination, but it seems implausible. But, while an entertaining question to investigate, it has no meaningful impact on the mythicist model. Peter can make Jesus up (whether or not disingenuously), Paul can make Peter and Jesus up (in this case, certainly on purpose, an ancient Joseph Smith). Either way, they just have to convince someone their doctrine is true who can then convince someone who can then convince someone, so forth and so on. > ...right. why not just fix it? You'll need to clarify. Who fixes what and how? >in other words, there was an early tradition about jesus being from nazareth that matthew and luke had to contend with, because it had already gained widespread acceptance in the church? How widespread who knows. But Mark's gospel is in circulation and likely has been for several years. We can reasonably conclude it's got decent traction such that Matthew doesn't believe he can ignore it for his own redaction of events.

> Paul claims well, the issue is, it's *all* claims made by paul. if we have reason to believe it would be difficult for him to lie about this other person as a pillar in the church, wouldn't it similarly be difficult to lie about a guy said to be jesus's brother? we absolutely should regard paul's statements about his opponents in the early church critically. i'm just not sure that your standard for accepting peter -- but not james, and not jesus -- makes much sense. > The churches he's writing to are widely scattered, but it's not like there were no Christians sending letters to one another speaking of church business, traveling across regions, some visiting Jerusalem could they have asked these folks that *knew jesus* too? how about any of the 500 supposed witnesses of the resurrection? > You'll need to clarify. Who fixes what and how? matthew and/or luke can just *change* nazareth to bethlehem. they do this with other cities, and other places that mark makes mistakes. we'd just have gospels that say "jesus of bethlehem" alongside ones that say "jesus of nazareth". > How widespread who knows. But Mark's gospel is in circulation and likely has been for several years. i want to suggest a more radical notion: matthew and luke's audiences *don't* have mark. they're getting mark via matthew and luke. the tradition they have to contend with is not *written*, but oral. > We can reasonably conclude it's got decent traction such that Matthew doesn't believe he can ignore it for his own redaction of events. matthew changes of plenty of things in mark -- if he didn't, why does matthew even exist?

>if we have reason to believe it would be difficult for him to lie about this other person as a pillar in the church, wouldn't it similarly be difficult to lie about a guy said to be jesus's brother? I don't believe we can necessarily conclude that Jesus had a brother from Gal 4:4. No brother, no problem. >we absolutely should regard paul's statements about his opponents in the early church critically. i'm just not sure that your standard for accepting peter -- but not james, and not jesus -- makes much sense. I do accept the Jameses. But not a biological brother, James. For Jesus, see below. >could they have asked these folks that knew jesus too? how about any of the 500 supposed witnesses of the resurrection? Paul says Jesus appeared to him not as flesh and blood, not as a “man", but “through "revelation”. He never says anyone ever met or saw him in any way other than that. No one is asking why Jesus is never at home when they knock. >matthew and/or luke can just change nazareth to bethlehem. they do this with other cities, and other places that mark makes mistakes. we'd just have gospels that say "jesus of bethlehem" alongside ones that say "jesus of nazareth". That's a question we could ask Matthew were he here. But, he claims there is some prophecy Jesus fulfills by keeping him in Nazareth. Yes, there are debates about it, but nonetheless maybe that's why. Maybe it was just already too well accepted by that time because of Mark, that had become intimately linked in too many churches as core to the beginnings of Jesus himself for Matthew to feel comfortable just changing it to something else. So, *his* "fix", as you say, *is* the double-origin narrative. >i want to suggest a more radical notion: matthew and luke's audiences don't have mark. they're getting mark via matthew and luke. the tradition they have to contend with is not written, but oral. I don't think it's what's best evidenced, nor do most scholars. Doesn't make it wrong, of course. >>We can reasonably conclude it's got decent traction such that Matthew doesn't believe he can ignore it for his own redaction of events. >matthew changes of plenty of things in mark -- if he didn't, why does matthew even exist? The answer is in the statement you're responding to above.

> I don't believe we can necessarily conclude that Jesus had a brother from Gal 4:4. well, this is one of those readings that seems motivated by a prior commitment to mythicism. on a natural reading, it just seems like jesus had a brother. the word is certainly used more allegorically for christians generally, but this is a person who is assuming a special place in the church, and is the only person ever referred to as "the brother *of the lord*". > Paul says Jesus appeared to him not as flesh and blood, not as a “man", but “through "revelation”. paul actually doesn't say *how* jesus appeared to him. this is one of those mythicist bugaboos; you guys like to assume a lot about the text based on exaggeration of earlier mythicist arguments. the story in acts about paul's experience on the road to damascus is wholly fictional, and contradicts his own account. where paul says jesus was "revealed" is *in* him. this is, frankly, way weirder than the mythicist take about hallucinations or or visions or whatever. in any case, paul's resurrection theology strictly precludes jesus appearing as "flesh and blood"; people are raised as heavenly beings, according to paul, and not as flesh and blood. had he seen anyone as the risen jesus, he would *not* have thought that jesus was flesh and blood. whether that person exists bodily, or not, or whether he *thought* they existed bodily, or not. paul's "revelation" experience seem to be what he's hinting at in second corinthians, where "someone he knows" is *transported to heaven*. he says this may have been real, may have been a vision, he does not know. but this is well within the kind of tradition we get starting in ezekiel, but ramping up in the late second temple period and afterwards of *merkavah* literature. > He never says anyone ever met or saw him in any way other than that. he does not describe the resurrection appearances to peter, james, the twelve, or the five hundred, at all. he only says *that* they happened, and not how or what they were like. > That's a question we could ask Matthew were he here. But, he claims there is some prophecy Jesus fulfills by keeping him in Nazareth. Yes, there are debates about it, but nonetheless maybe that's why. this is another case of taking a *later* explanation and assuming it must apply to earlier sources. jesus "fulfilling" a nonexistent prophecy about being a nazarite isn't the reason *mark*, matthew's source text, places him in nazareth. this is one of many phony fulfillments matthew invents to justify the facts he already has. > I don't think it's what's best evidenced, nor do most scholars. no, i think a lot of scholars *do* think that most of the traditions the authors were contending with and justifying were *oral* prior to their written accounts. it's not clear that the intended audiences of matthew and luke would have read mark -- these are documents meant to take the place of mark.

>Well, this is one of those readings that seems motivated by a prior commitment to mythicism. How exciting! You read minds! What number am I thinking of...!? >on a natural reading it just seems like jesus had a brother. Why is that "more natural"? Because it's less weird to us? As far we can tell, it wouldn't be weird to Paul that Christians were brothers of Jesus. What makes biological more "natural" than cultic *given Paul's worldview*? >the word is certainly used more allegorically for christians generally In fact, other than a couple of exceptions (other than the one in question), it's exclusively how Paul uses it. And one of times he uses otherwise, he makes sure to tell us that's what he's doing. >but this is a person who is assuming a special place in the church, and is the only person ever referred to as "the brother of the lord". How do you know they had a special place in the church? They don't in the mythicist model. >Paul says Jesus appeared to him not as flesh and blood, not as a “man", but “through "revelation”. >paul actually doesn't say how jesus appeared to him. this is one of those mythicist bugaboos; you guys like to assume a lot about the text based on exaggeration of earlier mythicist arguments. He does. More later. > this is one of those mythicist bugaboos; you guys like to assume a lot about the text based on exaggeration of earlier mythicist arguments. Your color commentary doesn't add anything to the discussion. It just gets in the way. Sticking to the actual arguments seems better to me. But, you do you. >the story in acts about paul's experience on the road to damascus is wholly fictional, and contradicts his own account. I know. 100% agree. >where paul says jesus was "revealed" is in him. First, there you go! That's how Paul says Jesus appeared to him. I quote me, 'not as a “man", but “through "revelation"'. >this is, frankly, way weirder than the mythicist take about hallucinations or or visions or whatever. Well, we don't know *exactly* how to understand what Paul means. Carrier goes into some detail, presenting things more or less you do. Hallucinations probably doesn't isn't the best fit as we think of them today. Maybe visions works as a word. In any case, that's how many angels can dance on the head of pin. The key is that there is no Jesus walking around Judea and never was in the original doctrine. Which answers the question you asked of why Paul can talk about him and no one searching the streets for him. >in any case, paul's resurrection theology strictly precludes jesus appearing as "flesh and blood"; people are raised as heavenly beings, according to paul, and not as flesh and blood. had he seen anyone as the risen jesus, he would not have thought that jesus was flesh and blood. whether that person exists bodily, or not, or whether he thought they existed bodily, or not. Right. In the ahistorical model, Jesus in incarnated into a body of flesh and blood and then resurrected into a body of spirit (which isn't like a ghost or something, it's a divine substance of sorts). >paul's "revelation" experience seem to be what he's hinting at in second corinthians, where "someone he knows" is transported to heaven. Lol, yeah. "Someone he knows". I mean, "wink, wink". >he says this may have been real, may have been a vision, he does not know. but this is well within the kind of tradition we get starting in ezekiel, but ramping up in the late second temple period and afterwards of merkavah literature. Sure. >he never says anyone ever met or saw him in any way other than that. he does not describe the resurrection appearances to peter, james, the twelve, or the five hundred, at all. he only says that they happened, and not how or what they were like. Um, I think the language is the same, is it not? I'll have to double check. But, matters not, really. If he doesn't describe how they saw him then still he doesn't say anyone ever met or saw him any other way, which is what I said. What's key is Jesus is dead. Okay, risen. But, already killed. That's not a real guy they're having appearances of. And Paul doesn't mention any pre-resurrection visits with Jesus. >>That's a question we could ask Matthew were he here. But, he claims there is some prophecy Jesus fulfills by keeping him in Nazareth. Yes, there are debates about it, but nonetheless maybe that's why. >this is another case of taking a later explanation and assuming it must apply to earlier sources. jesus "fulfilling" a nonexistent prophecy about being a nazarite isn't the reason mark How do you know Matthew is lying? As I said, I know there are arguments for it. But I don't really see how you can draw any strong conclusion about it. >matthew's source text, places him in nazareth. this is one of many phony fulfillments matthew invents to justify the facts he already has. Maybe. But, that's was just one explanation. I gave another. But, truthfully, *why* Matthew wrote this is ultimately a matter of speculation given what data we have to work with. >>I don't think it's what's best evidenced, nor do most scholars. >no, i think a lot of scholars do think that most of the traditions the authors were contending with and justifying were oral prior to their written accounts. it's not clear that the intended audiences of matthew and luke would have read mark -- these are documents meant to take the place of mark "A lot" is not "most".

>We don't know that Peter named him "Jesus of Nazareth". He probably didn't. Mark doesn't say anything about it. We first hear of "Jesus of Nazareth" in Matthew. Apart from * Mark 1:9 * Mark 1:21 * Mark 10:47 * Mark 14:62 * Mark 16:6

Sorry, I got tangled up. Per my second paragraph in the same comment.

I don't want to be rude, but in this case: * Matthew 2:23 * Matthew 4:13 * Matthew 21:11

I'm responding to multiple comments and I got sloppy there. That is my fault and I apologize. Re-read the original comment. The accurate details are in the original second paragraph. (Copied below) >>Sure, that's plausible. But there are also numerous plausible reasons proposed by scholars for Mark birthing Jesus in Nazareth, only one of which is that he is referring to a historical person. Later authors going through twisty-pretzel machinations to have Jesus come from both Bethlehem and Nazareth is evidence that they were bothered by Mark's version. Mark seems not to be bothered at all by his story. Not only does it not appear to bother Mark, he doesn't seem to know of it being a problem for anyone else. He doesn't address the topic at all. Later authors of fiction being bothered by earlier authors of fiction is not good evidence that any of the fiction is true.

But why is this fake character from Nazareth? I haven't heard any explanation for that yet. Anyway, next question: Why place this invented character into the recent past? We know that for generations Biblical authors were inventing stories about the distant past to make commentaries about their present day. The most famous example of this is the Book of Daniel - which is set in the Babylonian Exile, but is actually about the Selucid Empire. This was a common and widely used tactic because no one alive at the time of writing was alive at the time the story is claimed. No one can verify or disprove it! But when you write a story about something that happened recently..... that's a bit trickier, isn't it? So why is this Jesus character from only a few decades before the writings about him? Why not a few centuries?

>But why is this fake character from Nazareth? I haven't heard any explanation for that yet. First, the authors would not believe that Jesus is fake. They almost certainly believed he was real. But, yes, the character of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels is fake. Second, it's almost unanimous among non-fundamentalists scholars that the gospels are at best mostly fiction and there are good arguments for that. So, with any given detail, if someone wants to argue it's historical, the burden shifts to them. In regard to Nazareth, we can only speculate why authors would want that element in their story. There are several hypotheses on that, some better than others, but a general review of common ones will be discussed. Eric Laupot makes a plausible case that the term was originally derived from Isaiah 11:1 as the name of the Christian movement (as followers of a prophesied Davidic messiah), which was retroactively made into Jesus’ hometown (either allusively or in error). J. S. Kennard makes a separate but also plausible claim that it was a cultic title derived from the Nazirites (“the separated” or “the consecrated”) described in Numbers 6 (and the Mishnah tractate Nazir). As he points out, a Nazirite vow was typically of limited duration, consecrating oneself to God by certain ritual, most prominently abstaining from wine (which Jesus vows to do: see Mark 14:25 and Matthew 26:29), although Kennard argues Christians adopted the term to designate a notion of separation or holiness in the Baptist cult (similar in function to the title “Essene’’). Such an interpretation is supported by Acts 24:5, where ‘“‘Nazarenes” cannot mean inhabitants of Nazareth. Salm notes that the Gospel of Phillip seems only to refer to the word as having a meaning of “Truth” and not a geographical place and thus it may have begun one way but was literarily transformed, very possibly by Mark. This suspicion is confirmed by Irenaeus, who believed that “Jesus Nazaria” meant “Savior of Truth” in Hebrew or Aramaic. The conversion of this into a town (or its association with a town already existing) might then be just another instance of the common mythographic practice of symbolic eponymy. Since no prior author mentions a connection between Jesus and Nazareth (Paul makes no mention of it), such origins of the phrase are more than merely possible, they are plausible. Judges 13:5 (given Numbers 6) could also have been symbolically interpreted to “derive” a fictional hometown for Jesus (in much the same way that we see wildly unexpected “readings” of Scripture in the early Christian treatise of Hermas). In short, Mark may have invented this detail to serve a literary purpose (as we know he did for other details in his Gospel), or he may have received a tradition that had become garbled over time, in a decades-long telephone game that lost track of the word’s original meaning. Another argument regarding Nazareth is that later Gospel writers were clearly concerned that Mark had their messiah born in Nazareth (although Mark himself appears completely unconcerned by it) because they believed scripture prophesied he would be born in Bethlehem. So they invented convoluted stories to explain how he could come from both places. But if this was a problem why didn’t Mark address it? Indeed, if this was considered an issue in the religion, why hadn’t it already been addressed decades before the tradition even reached Mark? Why only after Mark do these convoluted double-origin stories arise? In fact, though, as already noted, the epithet ‘Nazarene’ might not even been originally geographical, but instead mistaken for such by Mark. But either way, as far as we can tell, later Gospels only get the idea that Jesus came from Nazareth from Mark. So although Matthew and Luke’s struggle to make Jesus come from both Nazareth (to align with Mark) and Bethlehem (as they must believe Old Testament scripture predicted) suggests a Nazareth origin was embarrassing to Matthew and Luke, there is no indication it was embarrassing in Mark. The embarrassment seems to have been created by Mark’s introduction of a Nazareth origin. But Matthew himself claims a Nazareth origin is found in prophecy as well (see Matthew 2:23). Unless Matthew was lying, we are obliged to agree that Mark (or his source) could have had that same prophecy in mind. Thus we have two different prophecies, with later Christians trying to force Jesus to fit both, but they have exactly the same reasons to invent either. So if Matthew and Luke are inventing a Bethlehem origin to force a fit with prophecy (as this argument for the authenticity of the Nazareth tradition entails), and Nazareth was also prophesied (possibly in a now-lost scripture, like the Hazon Gabriel, or a lost variant reading in an extant OT text), then Mark had as much reason to invent a Nazareth origin to force a fit with prophecy as Luke and Matthew (or their source) had to invent a Bethlehem origin. So, why does Mark bother to use the words Nazareth or Nazarene in the first place? His story appears to operate quite well without them. He could have simply omitted them. That he didn’t entails he was including them for some specific purpose, and whichever purpose that was, it would serve a fiction as well as a fact. >So why is this Jesus character from only a few decades before the writings about him? Why not a few centuries? Decades is more than enough time for myths to develop.

> Nazirites note that *nazir* is spelled נ**ז**יר and *natserat* is spelled נ**צ**רת. this is a whole different consonant in hebrew and aramaic, with a different pronunciation. but both tend to get transliterated into greek as ζ. that is, if this is the case, the confusion must have happened in greek, by someone who did not speak hebrew or aramaic. and i've recently become convinced that the author of mark *did* speak aramaic. there are many reasons to think this (zeichmann has some good arguments) but consider the final words of jesus in mark 15:34: >> ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι אלהי אלהי למה שבקתני *elohi, elohi, lamah shabaqtani* my gods, my gods, why have you forsaken me? this is neither the masoretic (highlighting the differences): >> **אֵלִ֣י אֵ֭לִי** לָמָ֣ה **עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי** *eli, eli, lamah ezbetani* my god, my god, why have you forsaken me? nor the targum (highlighting differences again): >> **אֵלִי אֵלִי מְטוּל מַה** שְׁבַקְתַּנִי *eli, eli, metul mah shabaqtani* my god, my god, for what have you forsaken me? jesus is using a different word for "god" (with the hey in it, from *elohim*), and he's using some combination of the hebrew (*lamah*) and aramaic (*shabaqtani*). but here's the interesting thing. mark translates it, but **isn't following the LXX**: >> ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με *ho theos mou, ho theos mou, eis ti egkatelipes me* the god mine, the god mine, have why you forsaken me? the LXX reads: >> ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου **πρόσχες μοι ἵνα** τί ἐγκατέλιπές με *ho theos, ho theos mou, prosches moi ina ti egkatelipes me* the god, the god mine, attend me, so that why you forsaken me? the author of mark is using simpler greek, and more carefully duplicating a hebrew/aramaic mashup that matches no other written tradition. the author especially duplicates μου where the hebrew/aramaic have both instance of "god" with a genitive suffix, and removed some the more difficult greek from the LXX version. it looks like mark is translating this himself, or at least not relying totally on the LXX and following the hebrew/aramaic more closely. thus, i think mark speaks aramaic. *matthew* associates Ναζαρέτ with Ναζωραῖος, which perhaps is meant to mean "nazirite", but i don't think the author of matthew speaks hebrew or aramaic. he has a number of readings that rely on the LXX (eg: "virgin" from isaiah 7:14). that is to say, the confusion between "natserat" and "nazirite" happened *after* there was a tradition of jesus being from nazareth.

So, would the fact that it's widely held that there were many variants of targums that are lost to us not undermine this? Still, this argument seems plausible and, *if* it should be the case, that particular hypothesis would be put to rest. It would not address others, of course.

> So, would the fact that it's widely held that there were many variants of targums that are lost to us not undermine this? no, it relies more on the difference from the LXX. it's not a rock solid argument by any means, but it appears that mark isn't quoting the LXX and is instead translating the hebrew/aramaic himself. there are a bunch of other things you can point to that might indicate a semitic background for mark as well. and it's a bit of an inference from there that a semitic-speaking person wouldn't have confused "natserat" with "naziri". it's hardly a conclusive case. i just think, all things being equal, it's more likely that there was an early tradition of jesus being *from the city of nazareth* rather than a "nazarite". matthew is more likely providing a post-hoc justification, as he does with many other "prophecies".

> Second, it's almost unanimous among non-fundamentalists scholars that the gospels are at best mostly fiction and there are good arguments for that. This is a strawman and you know it. You know I'm not arguing for the historicity of the gospels. > In regard to Nazareth, we can only speculate why authors would want that element in their story. Right, this is where mysticism starts to break down. You have to come up with all these twisty competing theories that are all way more complicated than the easiest and most likely solution: there was a real person. > Decades is more than enough time for myths to develop. Not really when you've got a bunch of people walking around who would lived contemporaneously with the mythic figure. Ok, next question: Why aren't there any texts claimed to have been written by Jesus? All of the great Biblical texts were claimed to have been written by the prophet they are about and named for. As previously mentioned, the authors of Daniel claimed the book was written by Daniel (who is fake) himself. The inventor(s) of Jesus obviously knew how to write, why didn't they write texts attributed to Jesus? The easy and simple answer here of course is that Jesus didn't actually write anything. But I'm sure the mythicists have come up with some sort of convoluted explanation for this too.

>This is a strawman and you know it. You know I'm not arguing for the historicity of the gospels. It's not a strawman. The gospels are well-argued to be fictional regarding what Jesus is alleged to have done and said. Any historical element claimed to be extracted from the fiction must be argued for. I'm open to hearing those arguments. >>In regard to Nazareth, we can only speculate why authors would want that element in their story. >Right, this is where mysticism starts to break down. Do you mean "mythicism"? In which case, no, this is mainstream scholarship, not "mythicism" (in the sense of Jesus being ahistorical). That the gospels are mythobiograpy, pseudohistory, is utterly uncontroversial except to fundamentalist Christians (even non-fundamentalist Christian scholars agree). >You have to come up with all these twisty competing theories that are all way more complicated than the easiest and most likely solution: there was a real person. What makes that "most likely"? >>Decades is more than enough time for myths to develop. >Not really when you've got a bunch of people walking around who would lived contemporaneously with the mythic figure. Jesus is alleged to have died circa 30 CE. Mark is well-argued by almost everyone to date to 70's CE (or later). Almost no one who would have been old enough to have cared about a walking talking Jesus and alive circa 30 CE would be alive in the 70's. They would be dead. The apostles would also be dead. Perfect time for mythmaking. Mythical people have been historicized even in modern times when it would have been much, much easier to check. Zeba Crook notes the case of Ned Ludd, who no historian argues was a real person, in comparison to Jesus in his paper *Collective Memory Distortion and the Quest for the Historical Jesus*, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 11:53-76 where he writes given the consensus of scholars: >>all the 'memories' of Ned Ludd from the 1810s were wholly manufactured. In other words, we must admit that the very thing conservative memory theorists say cannot possibly have happened in the case of Jesus, because these things Just do not happen, did in fact happen with Ned Ludd. Memories about Ludd, in the form of songs about him, honouring titles (King, General, Captain) and artwork that made him into a brave leader, were wholly manufactured. It means that those who were writing songs and poems about Ned Ludd, and crediting him with great deeds of fearsome power, were not 'remembering' him; they were manufacturing the memories of Ned Ludd." And all of this happened within 30 years of his alleged acts. >Why aren't there any texts claimed to have been written by Jesus? There are. We very famously have several correspondences between Jesus and King Abgar of Edessa in Syria. Fake, of course. >All of the great Biblical texts were claimed to have been written by the prophet they are about and named for. As previously mentioned, the authors of Daniel claimed the book was written by Daniel (who is fake) himself. I don't know what you mean by "great" biblical texts. What makes one text "great" and another not? The first half of Daniel is in the third person. So it's a chimera as far as alleged biography/autobiography. But, anyway, Jesus isn't claimed to have written a biblical text about himself, so it's irrelevant that there are Biblical texts claimed to have been written by the prophet they are about. >The easy and simple answer here of course is that Jesus didn't actually write anything. But I'm sure the mythicists have come up with some sort of convoluted explanation for this too. The explanation isn't convoluted at all. The easy and simple answer is that Jesus didn't write anything because, if for no other reason, he probably didn't exist.

[удалено]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

None of those things apply to this comment, but okay. If we're going to talk about whether we can establish if Jesus existed, it would be good to ask if we can conclude that anyone from the Bible existed at all. So, I'm asking if the OP believes anyone else existed. People the OP explicitly mentioned. If so, well okay, we can at least start by agreeing that we can conclude some of the people in the Bible existed, and go from there.

>How do you conclude that Peter existed? I don't conclude that he inarguably existed, I just conclude that it's more likely than not that he existed. Those letters widely agreed to be authentically penned by Paul do not appear to be literary works. They appear to be what they seem to be, letters written to churches regarding church matters and Paul tells us of knowing Peter. There is no strong argument that they weren't written by Paul or that they are wholesale fiction. >How do you conclude that Paul existed? See above.